oh bo tgert & οὐ ν᾽ & 
Α θυ  ν ΟΣ 
Vege gh εν ἄφψ re errr ee a) ‘thet ed be ge : 
i rec.) ye We ’ Sol Dat) le 
ὃ ὁ δον», p ἢ , 
a tee 5} ro ΝΗ ner 1374, 

ar 


© 
me eh eee 
“seagee bb, 

= ἐγ = Υ het ‘ 
es 


Ὁ ήμη pom od ῳ 
ΕΥ̓ ΓΝ 
ἐγ μον ἐγ ἢ a 
om ' Υ wo 
vor Y " he Ζ ΜῊΝ 
δ ἴτω bet apes > 
4 Ue 


snot 
Ἂ 


. maw 
BY & One mee 
te! 


oer ere te 
Pe μὴν νον 
oe Ae νὼ 
hore 


jee & 


> ν᾿ 


oy 
aw it emer 
A so ane a 
ι. Δ». 
ΕΣ», 
4 ~ 
4». 
4 ἡ 
“Fr 
δ 


ΕΣ 
Oe EN Ad oi 
be meet y 
ipo ὦ ΑΨ fd Ons 9% 
Weer ia 
Vere epee 
he 
s Ghbe 


ie 
ΒΥ 
nie Wey 
#) τ} Αὶ 
"᾿ oi. 
ΔΝ 


ὄφιν» 
id 


νιν iF 
oper 
ἣν 


++ +e ων, 
? ey ὁ ὁ» 


td 


mabe yx Je ᾿ 4 
μεν Bar Mb a5 2" + 
᾿ ρας “ 
ἣν aerre 
epee 


« 


μὴν Oy BAP 


Library of The Theological Seminary 


PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 


DIES 


PRESENTED BY 
Prof. Benj. Breck Warfield 


BS2344 .M5 1883 v.1i 
D/sterdieck, Friedrich 
Hermann 

Christian, 1822-1906. 
Critical and exegetical 
handbook to the Revelation 
of John. 


ὧν 


᾿ 2 fy i a 
icyers Commentary | on The 


~ 


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 


HANDBOOK 


TO THE 


REVELATION OF JOHN. 


BY 


FRIEDRICH DUSTERDIECK, D.D., 


OBER-CONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD EDITION OF THE GERMAN, 
AND EDITED WITH NOTES, 


BY 


HENRY E. JACOBS, D.D., 


NORTON PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY, PHILADELPHIA, PENN. 


NEW YORK: 
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS, 
18 & 20 AsTOR PLACE. 
1887. 


ne ae Ὁ ry ote 
Ne VW Ye at A eV) 


, ἡ 
‘ 
< x 
. ‘ 
qi ‘we ' 
- 
δ . Ν 
, 
. tf j 
Pa fee 
; ’ 
"2. 
ὲ 7) 4 
Ὁ ‘ . 
τ ἔμ | ᾿ 
Py 
5 he 2 
τ “ὟΣ 


PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


‘¢ Biessep is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this 
prophecy.’? ‘Such are the words in which this last book of the Bible 
is commended to our attention and study. However exalted its 
mysteries above our comprehension, we dare not because of their 
difficulty pass over them, but may confidently expect to be richly 
rewarded by the frequent contemplation even of those portions of 
the book whose solution we cannot even feebly conjecture in this 
life. It is perfectly consistent with the utmost simplicity in the 
preaching of the Gospel, and with the avoidance of curious specula- 
tions so much to be condemned, for the Christian pastor to aid the 
reading of his hearers by the exposition of such lines of divine 
thought in this book as in his private studies he can clearly trace. 

This volume is offered as a help to such study. Its author, 
Dr. Fr. Dusterdieck, is well known as a writer on Apologetics, and 
still continues to publish exegetical papers in Luthardt’s Zeitschrift 
fiir kirchliche Wissenschaften and elsewhere. He has furnished us 
with perhaps the most important commentary on this book which we 
thus far possess. His spirit is reverent and devout, his judgment 
generally calm and discriminating, his investigations wide and ex- 
haustive. Although we concede so much, we are by no means 
ready to indorse his opinions on all the subjects presented, and in 
several of his long discussions we regard his judgment, which is 
ordinarily trustworthy, as seriously at fault. In revulsion from the 
assumptions of the Tibingen school, which conceded the apostolic 
origin of the Book of Revelation, and then from that basis en- 
deavored to prove, because of dissimilarity of style, etc., the non- 


111 


iv PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


Johannean origin of the Gospel ascribed to St. John, our author 
has taken the directly opposite position, and denied the apostolic 
origin of Revelation, — with what success, the reader must judge. 
Compelled in translation to examine the argument very closely, it 
has seemed to us at every step unsatisfactory, forced, and unworthy 
of the high character of this work. It must not be inferred, how- 
ever, that, in denying that the Apostle John wrote the book, he also 
denies its inspiration: this he maintains, although with limitations 
which many of our readers will doubtless regret, as may be seen on 
pp. 84 sqq. The author belongs to the preterist class of interpreters, 
and argues that the time of composition was prior to the destruction 
of Jerusalem. In the notes, we have frequently given the arguments 
on an opposite side, mostly from some of the later standard authori- 
ties. This commentary is itself of high value, especially because of 
its compact summary of the interpretations of all the more prominent 
expositors, and in connection with what has been added, we are 
convinced, may be most safely and profitably employed. 

The work of translation has often been extremely difficult, be- 
cause of the long and involved sentences, frequently consisting of a 
mosaic of quotations; but we trust that the reader may be able, 
in the form which we have given, to follow the author intelligently. 


HENRY E. JACOBS. 


} 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE Ev. LUTHERAN CHURCH, 
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 11, 1886. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


THE various expositions of the Book of Revelation would, of themselves, 
form a library. This list includes the more prominent works, as well as some 
others of interest to students, either because of their recent or their American 
origin. 


ALFORD: Greek Testament, vol. iv., 8d ed. 1866. 


AUBERLEN: Der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis. 1854. Eng- 
lish translation, 1856. 


BARNES: Notes. 1852. 
Beck: Erklarung ἃ. Offenb. Joh. Cap. i.—xii., ed. Lindenmeyer, 1888, 


BENGEL: Erklarte Off. Joh. 1740, 1834. 
60 erbaul. Reden. 1748. 3d ed. 1835-37. 


+ ΒΙΒΡΙΧα: Erklirung der sieben katholischen Briefe. 1871. 

BLEEK: Vorlesungen herausg. von Hossbach. 1862. 

BoEHMER (E.): Verfasser u. Abfassungszeit der joh. Apoc. 1855. 
BoEHMER (H.): Die Offenb. Joh. Ein neuer Versuch. 1865. 

Branpt (A. H. W.): Einleitung zum Lesen der Offenb. St. Joh. 1860. 


CARPENTER: The Revelation of John the Divine (Handy Comm. series). 1883. 
CHRISTIANI: Ubers. Darstellung des Inhalts. 1869. 

CowLEs: The Revelation of John. 1871. 

CuMMING: Lectures. 2 vols. 1849-51. 


DESPREZ: The Apocalypse fulfilled. New ed. 1865. 
De WETTE: Kurz Erklarung ἃ. O. T. 3d ed. 1862. 
DIEDRICH: Die Offenb. Joh. kurz erlautert. 1865. 


DEUTINGER: Die christliche Ethik nach dem Ap. Joh.; Vortrage iiber die Briefe 
und die Offenb. 1867. 


EBRARD: Die Off. Joh. (vol. vii. of Olshausen’s Comm.). 1859. 
ELLIOTT: Horae Apocalypticae. 4 vols. 5th ed. 1862. 
EICHHORN: Comm. in Apoc. J. 2vols. 1781. 


vl EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


EWALp: Comm. in Apoc. exeg. et crit. 1828. 
Die johann. Schriften. 1862. vol. ii. 


FARRAR: The Early Days of Christianity. 1882. pp. 487-493. 
FULLER: Erklarung. 1874. 
FULLER (8.): The Revelation of St. John. 1885. 


GARTNER: Erkl. des Pr. Daniel u. ἃ. Offenb. 1863. 

GARRATT: Commentary on the Revelation. 1878. 

GEBHARDT: Lehrbegriff d. Apok. 1873. English translation, 1878. 
GERHARD (J.): Annot. 1648, 1645, 1712. 

GovDET: Studies on the N. T. English translation. pp. 294-398. 
GRABER: Versuch einer hist. Erkl. 1863. 


HAHN: Leitfaden zum Verstandnisse, ete. 1851. 

Harms (CLAus): Die Offenb. gepredigt. 1844. 

HAvVERNIcK: Uber die neueste Behandl. u. Ausleg. ἃ. Apok. 1834. 
HEIDEGGER: Diatribe. 2 vols. 1687. 

HEINRICHS: Annotatio. 2vols. 1818, 1821. 

HENGSTENBERG: Erlauterung. 2 vols. 1849, 1850. English trans., 1851-53. 


HERDER: Mapay θα, das Buch von der Zukunft ἃ. Herrn. 1779. English 
translation, 1821. 


Hess: Briefe ΡΟΣ die Offenbarung. 1843. 
HEUBNER: Predigten ii. die 7 Sendschreiben. 3d ed. 1850. 
HILGENFELD: Nero der Antichrist (Zeitschrift fiir wissensch. Theol.). 1869. iv. 
HOFFMANN (W.): Maranatha. 1858. 
HOLTZHAUSER: Erklarung. 1827. 
HOLTZMANN: (in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk) 1858. 
HUNTINGFORD: The Voice of the Last Prophet. 1858. 
The Apocalypse, with Commentary, etc. 1881. 
HuscHKE: Das Buch mit 7 Siegels. 1860. 


JENAUR: Rationale Apok. 2 vols. 1852. 
JESSIN: Erklérung. 1864. 
JOHANNSEN: Die Offenb. J. 1788. 


KELLY: The Revelation of John. 1860, 1871. 
KEMMLER: Die Offenb. Jesu Christian Joh. 1863. 
KIENLEN: Commentaire. 1870. 

+ KIRCHER: Explicatio. 1676. 

KLEUKER: Urspr. ἃ. Zweck. 1799. 

KLIEFOTH: Erklarung. 3 vols. 1874. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. Vill 


KREMMENTZ: Die Offenb. J. im Lichte ἃ. Evang. nach J. 1883. 
KROMAYER (J.): Commentarius. 1662, 1674. 


LAMMERT: Die Offenb. J. durch ἃ. h. Schrift ausgelegt. 1864. 
LANGE: (in Bibelwerk) 1870. English translation, 1874. 
Lorp: Exposition. 1831. 

LOwE: Weissagung τι. Weltgeschichte. 1868. 


LuTHARDT: Die Offenb. J. iibersetzt u. kurz erklart. 1860. (Die Lehre von 
den letzen Dingen, 1861.) 


MAITLAND: The Apostles’ School of Prophetic Interpretation. 1849. 
+ MARLORATUS: Exposition. 1574. 

MATTHAI: Erklarung. 1828. 

MAuvRIcE: Lectures. 1861. 


MEDE: Clavis Apocalyptica. 1627. 
Commentarius. 1632. 


MILLIGAN: (in Schaff’s Popular Commentary) 1883. 
The Revelation of St. John. Boyle Lectures for 1885. 


Murpuy: The Book of Revelation. 1882. 


NAPIER: Interpretation. 1593, 1611, 1645. (Also in French, Dutch, and 
German. ) 


NEwToN (B. M.): Thoughts on the Apocalypse. 1843. 


Newron (Sir I.): Observations on Daniel and the Revelation of St. John. 
1733. Lat., 1737. 


NEWTON (Bishop THoMAS): Dissertation on the Prophecies. Lasted, 1843. 
OOSTERZEE (v.): Christus unter den Leuchtern. 1874. 


PAREvS: Comment. in Apoc. 1618. 

PuILipPiI: Der Lehre von Antichrist. 1875. 
PLuMPTRE: The Epistles to the Seven Churches. 1877. 
Ponp: The Seals opened. 1871. 


RIcHTER: Kurzgef. Auslegung. 1864. 

RIEMANN: Die Offenb. Joh. fiir chr. Volk. 1868, 

Rincxk: Die Zeichen der letzen Zeit, and der Lehre von Antichrist. 1868. 
RouGEMONT: La Révél. de St. Jean. 1866. 


SABEL: Die Offenb. aus dem Zusammenlung der mess. Reichsgesch. 1861. 
SANDER: Versuch einer Erk]. 1829. 

SCHMUCKER (J. G.): Erklarung. Also translated into English, 1845, 
ScHRODER: Auff. der Offenb. (Jahr-Buch f. d. Theol., 1864). 


Vill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 


Sess: Lectures. 1869-73. 

SELNECKER: Erklirung. 1567, 1568, 1608. 

+ STERN: Komment. iiber die Offenb. 1854. 
Srorr: Neue Apologie der Offenb. 1805. 
STUART: Commentary on the Apoc. 2 vols. 1845. 
SvoBODE: On the Seven Churches. 1869. 


Tarr: The Messages to the Seven Churches. 1884. 
TRENCH: The Epistles to the Seven Churches. 1861. 


Vaueun: Lectures. 1863. 
Virrinaa: Anacrisis. 1705. 
VoLKMAR: Commentary. 1862. 


Wess: Apok. Studien (in Stud. ἃ. Kr., 1869). 
WIiEssELER: Zur Auslegung u. krit. apok. Lit. 1889. 
Worpswortu: Lectures. 1848. 

ZiiLLIG: Die Offenb. J. vollst. erkl. 1884, 1840. 


THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Cf. F. Liicke, Versuch einer volist. Hinl. in die Offend. des Johannes u. 
in die apokalypt. Literatur tiberhaupt. 2d ed., Bonn, 1848, 1852. Also the 
review of it by Bleek, Stud. u. Krit., 1854, p. 959; 1855, p. 159. 


SEC. I.—CONTENTS, PLAN, UNITY, AND FORM OF THE 
APOCALYPSE. 


1. As to contents, the Apocalypse falls into three manifestly distinct chief 
divisions.1_ For, with the most closely cohering series of visions, complete 
in themselves, of ch. iv. 1-xxii. 5, which form the chief theme, as the fulness 
of the Apocalyptic subjects are all here brought into contemplation, the first 
three chapters are related in several ways (cf. i. 1-3; ver. 4 sqq.; ver. 9 
sqq.; ii. 1 sqq.), as the introduction; while the section xxii. 6-21, expressly 
indicating a concluding retrospect of what precedes (ver. 6), forms the 
epilogue. 


‘Nore. — Even though the book be divided according to its formal organism,? 
three main divisions, but of different compass, still result. For then the chief 
theme is manifestly the entire recital of the visions imparted to John, from i. 9 
to xxii. 17 (all ‘‘the words of the prophecy of this book,’’ xxii. 18; cf. i. 3), 
which the prophet in describing them to the churches accompanies with his own 
preface (i. 1-8) and conclusion (xxii. 18-21). Ewald’s division into four parts 
(title and introduction, i. 1-8; the briefer vision with the seven epistles, i. 9- 
111, 22; the long series of connected visions, iv. 1-xxii. 5; conclusion, xxii. 6-21) 
depends upon a confusion of the material and formal principles of division. 
Hence the separation of chs. iii. and iv. seems as groundless as the grouping 
together of xxii. 6-21. 


1 Beng., Liicke, De Wette, etc. 2 Cf. Vitringa. 
1 


2 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


A survey of the contents in detail must here be given, so far as not only 
its methodical design, but also its unity, is thereby perceptible. 

The Introduction (chs. i.-iii.) contains, in the first place (i. 1-3), the 
preface, properly so called, in which the book is designated (i. 1, 2) accord- 
ing to its nature and contents; viz., as a prophetical writing, which is to 
present a revelation of God, through Jesus Christ, concerning events that 
are to occur in the near future, and is therefore most urgently commended 
(ver. 8). Then follows the preface of John, its writer (i. 4-8), to the seven 
churches of Asia Minor (cf. i. 11, ch. ii. 8), as the first readers of the 
prophetical book; a preface which not only presents a salutation ,in accord 
with the entire contents of the book (i. 4-6), but also—after the manner 
of the ancient prophets —expresses at the very outstart, in short and sen- 
tentious phrases (vv. 7, 8), the fundamental idea, and to a certain extent 
the theme, of the whole book. But if John, as the prophetic deliverer of 
a divine revelation, already in i. 1-3 and vy. 4-8 addresses particular 
churches, so he now reports (i. 9-20) how on a Lord’s Day the Lord had 
himself appeared to him, and given the express command that what he saw 
(vv. 11,19), — and, therefore, not only this manifestation of the Lord in 
calling him, but also the entire ἀποκάλυψις (revelation) (i. 1) described from 
the fourth chapter, —he should write to the churches named in ver. 11. 
With this, he intrusts to John special letters to all those churches (ii. 1-iii. 
22); in which, according to the various conditions, necessities, and dangers 
of each church, the sum of the entire revelation (discernible already from 
i. 7 sq.; οἵ. i. 1, 3) is elaborated and applied for their consolation. 

The proper chief subject of the prophetic book (iv. 1-xxii. 5) then intro- 
duces the report committed to writing by John, in compliance with the com- 
mand (i. 11, 19), concerning a series of visions, in which there is given to the 
prophet beholding them the revelation concerning things to come (é δεῖ 
γενέσθαι, ἵν. 1; οἵ. i. 1), which he is to testify to the churches. John, in 
compliance with a heavenly voice, taken up into the opened heaven, beholds 
God (the Father) upon his throne, surrounded by twenty-four elders, who 
likewise sit upon thrones. About the throne of God, there are also four 
beings who are described as cherubim. These beings, whose song of praise 
the elders adoringly continue, worship God enthroned, as the thrice holy, 
the Almighty, eternal Lord, which was, and is, and is to come (ch. iv.; cf. 
ver. 8 with i. 4, 8). 

In the right hand of him that sits on the throne, John now sees a book 
written within and without, and sealed with seven seals (v. 1). At the loud 
ery of a strong angel, “' Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the 
seals thereof?” no one able to do this is found in the entire circuit of 


\ ‘INTRODUCTION. 3 


creation. Yet John, who weeps over this, as he has learned that the book 
contains the future things which he was to behold, is encouraged by one of 
the elders, who points him to the Lion of the tribe of Judah, who has pre- 
vailed, to the Son of David, as the one who is worthy to open the book 
(v. 2-5). Then John sees in the midst of the throne and of the four beings 
and the elders, a Lamb standing as it had been slain, with seven horns and 
seven eyes (v. 6). This Lamb takes the book out of the right hand of him 
that sits upon the throne (ver. 7); upon which the four beings and the 
twenty-four elders celebrate his worthiness to open the book, and offer as 
the reason (cf. already ver. 5) the fact that the Lamb was slain, and has 
accomplished the work of redemption (vv. 8-10). All angels, yea all crea- 
tures, now unite in the ascription of praise to him who sits upon the throne, 
and to the Lamb (vv. 11-14). 

Upon this the Lamb begins (vi. 1) to unseal the book of fate; and John 
beholds not words written in the book, but significative forms and events as 
representations (cf. 1. 1, ἐσήμανεν, be signified) of what was to happen (cf. 
iv. 1). After the opening of the jirst seal (vi. 2), John beholds a rider upon 
a white horse, and with a bow in his hand. A crown is given to him: he 
is a conqueror, and goes forth to conquer. The second seal (vi. 3 sq.) brings 
a rider upon a flaming red horse. He receives a great sword: he is to 
take peace from the earth, that men should kill one another. From the third 
seal (vi. 5 sq.) comes a black horse, whose rider holds a pair of balances. 
A voice which is heard in the midst of the four beings proclaims famine. 
The fourth seal (vi. 7 sq.) brings a pale, livid horse, whose rider is called 
Death. He is to bring death to the fourth part of the earth, by the sword 
and hunger and other plagues. When the jifth seal (vi. 9-11) is opened, 
John hears how the souls of those who have been slain because of the word 
of God, cry to God from under the altar, as to how long he would delay to 
avenge their shed blood upon those who dwell upon the earth. To each of 
these martyrs a white robe is given, and it is said to them that a certain 
number of their brethren must first be killed. After the opening of the 
sitth seal (vi. 12-17), a mighty earthquake occurs, the sun is darkened, 
the stars fall upon the earth, the heaven is rent asunder, all mountains and 
islands are removed from their places, and the cries of alarm by the dwell- 
ers upon earth testify what also the fearful signs make known; viz., that 
the great day of God’s wrathful judgment has come. 

This final judgment, as the end of what is to happen, is to be expected 
now in the last or seventh seal. But the complete final development 
proceeds from this last seal only through a long series of further visions. 
Before it is opened, another event occurs in ch. vii. John beholds four 


4 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


angels, who stand upon the four corners of the earth, and hold there the 
four winds of the earth, in order that they may not yet break forth and 
inflict injury. For, as another angel who holds the seals of the living 
God cries out, the servants of God must first be marked on their foreheads 
with this seal (vii. 1-3). The number sealed out of Israel, John hears: 
they are one hundred and forty-four thousand; out of every tribe, twelve 
thousand (vii. 4-8). But hereupon he sees an innumerable multitude of all 
nations and tongues, standing before the throne of God and before the Lamb, 
clothed with white robes, and with palms in their hands, raising songs of 
praise in which the angels unite. These are they, as one of the elders 
says, which came out of great tribulation, and have entered into the glory 
of heaven (vv. 9-17). 

After this episode, the seventh seal is opened by the Lamb (viii. 1). 
Silence in heaven for about a half hour follows, during which the seven 
angels receive seven trumpets (villi. 2). Another angel comes, and places 
himself by the altar, with a golden censer in his hand, because he is to offer 
up incense with the prayers of the saints, and thus to make them acceptable 
(v. 3sq.). Asa testimony that the prayers are heard, and that what fol- 
lows is a consequence of the hearing of the prayer, the angel fills his censer 
with fire from the altar, and casts it upon the earth. Threatening signs 
follow, interrupting the silence which has hitherto prevailed, and giving the 
signal to the seven angels with the trumpets, who prepare to sound them 
(ver. 5sq.). At the blast of the first trumpet (viii. 7), hail and fire, min- 
gled with blood, fall upon the earth; and the third of all that grows upon 
it is consumed. The second trumpet (viii. 8 54.) brings a great mountain, 
aflame with fire, which, on being cast into the sea, changes one-third of it 
into blood, and causes the death and destruction of the third of all living 
creatures in the sea, and of all ships. At the third trumpet (vill. 10 sq.), a 
burning star falls upon the third of the streams and springs, whose waters 
it makes bitter (its name is “ Wormwood ”), so that many men die thereby. 
At the fourth trumpet (viii. 12), the third of the sun and of the moon and 
of all the stars is darkened, and accordingly a third of the day, while a 
third of the night is deprived of the light of stars. 

Before the three angels still remaining sound their trumpets, John hears 
an eagle, flying in the zenith, proclaim a threefold woe upon those who dwell 
upon the earth, because of the three blasts of the trumpets that are yet to 
come (vill. 13). The fifth trumpet:(ix. 1-11) brings from hell an army of 
locusts, which for five months were to fearfully torment, but not to kill, the 
men who were not sealed (cf. vil. 1 sq.). This is the first woe: two others 
follow (ix. 12). At the blast of the sixth trumpet (ix. 13-21), the command 


INTRODUCTION. 5 


is given, through a voice from the horns of the altar, to the sixth angel 
having a trumpet, to loose the four angels which are bound in the Euphrates, 
but are ready to rush upon the earth with an immense demoniacal army 
of horsemen, and to slay a third part of men. This happens, and yet the 
survivors do not repent. 

The plague announced by the sixth trumpet belongs, of course, to the 
second woe (cf. viii. 18), but is not yet fulfilled (cf. xi. 14). Hence 
the seventh trumpet does not immediately sound; and there follows next, in 
chap. x., a significant digression, to which the part of the second woe that 
still remains (xi. 1-13) is added. 

A mighty angel, having a little book in his hand, comes from heaven, 
and puts his feet, which are like pillars of fire, the right upon the sea, and 
the left upon the earth (x. 1sq.). Seven thunders answer his loud eall 
with their voices, which John understands, but is not to write, but to seal 
(ver. 3sq.). The angel now swears that forthwith, viz., in the days of the 
seventh trumpet, the blessed and glorious end will come, when the mystery 
᾿ οὗ God, as He himself has proclaimed it to the prophets, will be finished 
(vv. 5-7). Thereupon, at the command of a heavenly voice, John takes 
the little book from the angel’s hand, and swallows it. It is, as the angel 
said, as sweet to him in the mouth as honey, but bitter in his belly. A 
heavenly voice interprets this eating of the book: John is to prophesy again 
before peoples and tongues and many kings (vv.\8-11). 

This new prophecy immediately begins. A reed is given to the seer, 
with which he is to measure the temple at Jerusalem, and the altar, together 
with those who worship in the temple, in order to separate what is measured 
_ from the court and the city, which for forty-two months is to be trodden 
down by the heathen (xi. 1 sq.). During this time, two witnesses of Christ, 
furnished with divine power to work miracles, are to preach repentance. 
But the beast out of the pit will kill them, and their corpses are to lie 
unburied in the streets of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom 
and Egypt, where also the Lord of those witnesses was crucified (ver. 8), for 
three days and a half, to the joy of the godless inhabitants of the earth 
(vv. 3-10). Yet after three days and a half —so John further reports his 
vision — the two witnesses are again awakened by God, and raised to heaven 
before the eyes of their terrified enemies (ver. 11 sq.). At the same time, 
a great earthquake destroys a tenth of the city, and kills seven thousand 
inhabitants, whereby the rest are brought to repentance (ver. 13). With 
this judgment upon Jerusalem, the second woe is finished. The third 
follows quickly (xi. 14). 

The seventh trumpet also now sounds (xi. 15), whereupon various songs 


6 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


of praise arise in heaven, which celebrate the fulfilment of the mystery of 
God — to be expected, according to x. 7, from the seventh trumpet — as hay- 
ing already occurred, and the day of wrathful judgment upon the heathen as 
having already come (vv. 15-18). The temple of God in heaven is opened, 
so that the ark of the covenant contained therein is visible; and other 
threatening signs occur like those in viii. 5 (xi. 19). 

But the third woe in its actual coming is still not yet seen; and if the 
heavenly songs of praise and thanksgiving (xi. 15-18) celebrate the glori- 
ous end as already come, this can be only a prolepsis, which has its correct 
application in this, that the seventh trumpet is now sounded, and is partly 
the more fitting, as it is the inhabitants of heaven who, when the seventh 
sound of the trumpet has given the signal of the fulfilment, regard this as 
having already occurred. Yet a further revelation to John follows, concern- 
ing the days of the seventh trumpet, which in fact still impend (cf. x. 7), 
in a new series of visions, through which future things, as they actually 
belong to the fulfilment of the mystery of God, are represented. This 
blessed end (xxi. 1 sqq.), to which the divine gospel in the prophets points ° 
promissively (cf. x. 7), can come only through the complete judgment upon 
all that is ungodly (chs. xvii. sqq.). Yet the description of this judgment 
can be satisfactorily explained only by a description of that which is un- 
godly in its inmost nature and most peculiar forms of appearance. The 
latter forms the chief scope of chs. xii.-xvi. Nevertheless, even here there 
is no lack of elements pointing forward and giving assurance of systematic 
progress. 

John beholds in heaven a woman clothed with the sun, the moon under 
her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. She is with child, and 
is about to give birth (xii. 1 sq.). There appears a great flaming-red 
dragon, with seven heads, ten horns, and seven crowns. His tail sweeps a 
third of the stars of heaven, and casts them upon the earth. He puts him- 
self before the travailing woman, in order, after the birth, to devour the 
child (xii. 3 sqq.). The woman bears a son who is to rule all the nations 
with a rod of iron. The child is caught up unto God, and God’s throne. 
The woman flees into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared for 
her, that she should be fed there twelve hundred and sixty days (xii. 5 sq.). 
A conflict now arises in heaven between Michael, together with his angels, 
and the dragon (i.e., the devil) and his angels ; and the latter are cast to 
the earth (vv. 7-9). This victory is celebrated by a loud voice in heaven, 
praising God and his Christ; but at the same time proclaiming wrath upon 
the earth and the sea, because the devil, cast down thereto, would exert his 
great wrath during the brief period allowed him (vv. 10-12). The dragon 


INTRODUCTION. T 


persecutes the woman; but she receives two wings of an eagle, in order to 
fly into the wilderness to her place (ver. 18 sq.). In vain the dragon casts 
after the woman a stream of water, which the earth swallows up, so that he 
departs to contend with the rest of the seed of the woman (vv. 13-17). 

The dragon goes upon the shore of the sea (vv. 11, 18), from which a 
beast rises with ten horns, seven heads, ten crowns, and names of blasphemy 
upon its heads. It is like a leopard, but has the feet of a bear, and the 
mouth of a lion; it receives from the dragon its power and throne (xiil. 
1sq.). One of its heads is wounded unto death, but the deadly wound is 
healed (xiii. 3). The whole earth wonders at the beast, and worships the 
dragon. The beast dares to speak blasphemies, and to contend victoriously 
with the saints. It has power over the whole earth for forty-two months 
(ver. 5), and is worshipped by all who do not belong to the Lamb (vv. 4-8), 
—a fearful prophecy which John commits to writing, not without adding an 
intimation concerning the judgment upon this ungodly being, and admon- 
ishing the saints to patience and faith (ver. 9 sq.). Upon this, John sees 
another beast rise from the earth, with two horns like a lamb, and speaking 
like a dragon (xiii. 11). By seduction, miracles, and force (ver. 17), this 
beast causes the dwellers upon earth to worship the former beast (xiii. 
12-17). The number to explain its name to one having understanding is 
666 (ver. 18). 

Another vision follows essentially in the sense of the intercalated para- 
cletic section of xiii. 9 sq. On Mount Zion stands the Lamb, with a hun- 
dred and forty-four thousand of his people, while heavenly voices sing before 
God’s throne a new song which only the redeemed can learn. An angel, 
with the everlasting gospel intended for all dwellers upon earth, flying in the 
zenith, demands conversion to the true God, while he testifies that the hour 
of judgment has come (xiv. 6 sq.). Another angel proclaims the fall of 
great Babylon as having already occurred (ver. 8); and a third, the eternal 
punishment of the worshippers of the beast (vv. 9-11). There is next a 
paracletic digression of John (ver. 12); also a heavenly voice commands him 
to write that they who die in the Lord are blessed (ver. 13). Then the 
course of the development towards the end, whose next goal ver. 8 already 
proleptically marks, again continues. Upon a white cloud appears one like 
the Son of man, with a golden crown upon his head, and a sharp sickle in 
his hand. From the temple comes another angel, who calls to him who sits 
upon the cloud, to begin with the sickle the harvest, for which the time has 
come. The latter then thrusts his sickle into the earth, which is harvested 
(vv. 14-16). Still another angel comes forth out of the heavenly temple, 
likewise holding a sharp sickle, which, by the order of an angel coming 


8 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


forth from the altar, he thrusts into the earth. Thus the vine of the earth 
is harvested, and the wine-press is trodden outside of the city; the blood 
which proceeds therefrom extends to the horses’ bridles, sixteen hundred 
furlongs (17-20). 

A new, astonishing sign in heaven appears to the seer: the seven angels 
having the seven last plagues; for in them is the wrath of God fulfilled 
(xv. 1). After a hymn of the victors over the beast, who, in the song of 
Moses and the Lamb, proclaim the righteousness of God and his glory, which 
is to be worshipped by all the nations (vy. 2-4), those seven angels come 
forth from God’s temple, and receive from one of the four beings seven 
golden vials filled with the wrath of the everlasting God (vv. 5-7). The 
temple is filled with smoke from the glory and power of God, so that no 
one can enter therein until the seven plagues of the seven angels are ful- 
filled (ver. 8). A voice from the temple now commands the seven angels to 
pour their vials upon the earth (xvi. 1). The jst vial, poured out upon the 
earth (xvi. 2), brings a severe ulcer upon the men who bear the mark of the 
beast, and worship his image. ‘The second vial (ver. 3), poured out upon 
the sea, changes it into blood as of a dead man; every thing living in the 
sea dies. The third vial (ver. 4), poured out upon the rivers and springs, 
changes them into blood. The angel of the waters glorifies the righteous- 
ness of the divine judgments; so, too, the angel of the altar (vv. 5-7). The 
fourth vial (ver. 8 sq.), poured out upon the sun, causes a heat that scorches 
men. But all these plagues work no repentance. The ji/th vial (ver. 10 sq.), 
poured out upon the throne of the beast, causes darkness in his kingdom, 
but only new blasphemies on the part of those who are afflicted. The sixth 
vial (vv. 12-16) is poured upon the Euphrates, which is dried, that the way 
may be prepared for the kings of the East. Out of the mouths of the 
dragon, the beast, and the false prophet, come three unclean spirits, like 
frogs, which gather the kings for the struggle of that great day — “ Behold, 
the Lord cometh quickly: blessed is he that watcheth ” (ver. 15) — and that, 
too, to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon. The seventh vial (vv. 
17-21) is poured out into the air. A heavenly voice cries, “It is done.” 
Amidst voices, lightnings, and thunders, an unprecedented earthquake 
occurs, which divides the great city into three parts, and overthrows the 
cities of the nations. Islands and mountains vanish (cf. vi. 14). A great 
hail falls. Yet men continue their blasphemies. One of the seven angels 
having the vials now comes to John, and wishes to show him the judgment 
of the great harlot, with whom the kings and the inhabitants of the earth 
in general have committed fornication (xvii. 1 sq.). He carries the seer, in 
spirit, into the wilderness. There sits upon a scarlet-colored beast, covered 


a 


INTRODUCTION. | 9 


with names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns, a wanton 
woman, having in her hand a cup full of abominations, and upon her fore- 
head a name written which designates her as Babylon, the mother of harlots 
and abominations of the earth. She is drunken with the blood of saints 
(vv. 2-6). To the astonished John, the angel explains the mystery of the 
woman and the beast (xvii. 7-18). Another angel proclaims the fall of 
great Babylon as having already occurred (cf. xiv. 8), and declares that her 
sins are the cause of the judgment (xviii. 1-3). Another voice from heaven 
first commands the servants of God to go forth out of Babylon, in order to 
share neither her sins nor her plagues (ver. 4); and then, to more firmly 
establish the burden of her sins, describes her complete ruin (xviii. 5-20), 
which another angel portrays by casting a great millstone into the sea, thus 
describing the destruction of the godless city, stained by the blood of mar- 
tyrs (vv. 21-24). Thus the fulfilled judgment upon the great harlot is cele- 
brated in heaven with songs of praises (xix. 1-8). Before, however, the 
other ungodly powers are judged, there follows, in a brief digression (xix. 
9 sq.), an allusion to the blessed fulfilment of the mystery of God (cf. x. 7) 
at the marriage-supper of the Lamb; for already a chief act of the judgment 
is accomplished, whereby that glorious end will be attained. The descrip- 
tion of the other acts of judgment continues directly afterward (xix. 11). 
Christ himself, with his followers, goes forth from the opened heaven (xix. 
11-16), — while an angel, standing in the sun, with a loud voice calls 
together the birds to eat the flesh of the inhabitants of the earth (ver. 17 
sq.), — against the beast, which with his army awaits the conflict (ver. 19). 
The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into the lake of fire; the rest 
are slain with the sword which proceeds from the mouth of Christ, and all 
the birds are filled with their flesh (v. 20 sq.). . Then Satan himself is 
bound for a thousand years by an angel coming out of heaven, and cast into 
the abyss, whence he is to be loosed again for a short time after that period 
(xx. 1-3). During the thousand years, those reign with Christ who for his 
sake have been slain, and have not served the beast, after they have been 
raised from the dead, — the first resurrection (vv.4-6). After the expiration 
of the thousand years, Satan loosed goes forth to deceive the nations in 
the four ends of the earth, Gog and Magog, and to bring them together 
for battle. They also rise up over the surface of the earth, and surround 
the camp of the saints, the beloved city; but fire from heaven consumes 
them, and they are cast to eternal torments in the lake of fire (xx. 7-10). 
Then finally, in the judgment of the world, in which all the dead 
appear before the gloriously enthroned Judge (the second resurrection ; 
ef. ver. 5), all those whose names are not found written in the book of 


10 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


life, together with death and hell, are cast out. This is the second death 
(xx. 11-15). 

The entire judgment of every thing ungodly is thus completed. There 
follows, finally (xxi. 1-xxii. 5), the presentation of the blessed mystery of 
God, in its actual fulfilment (cf. x. 7). John beholds a new heaven and a 
new earth, and the new Jerusalem descending from heaven as an adorned 
bride (xxi. 1 sq.); at which not only a voice from heaven proclaims the 
eternal blessedness of those dwelling with God, but also he that sitteth on 
the throne himself testifies that the eternal fulfilment is accomplished, both 
in the glorification of the believing victors, and in the condemnation of all 
the godless (vv. 3-8). But one of the seven angels having the vials wishes 
to show John the Lamb’s bride more closely; therefore he brings the seer 
in spirit to a high mountain (ver. 9 sq.), whence he beholds the new Jeru- 
salem in the glory of God, as it is described, xxi. 11-xxii. 5. Thus has the 
revelation, begun in ch. iv., attained its highest goal, and exhausted its 
subject; it has disclosed, up to the eternal accomplishment, that which was 
to come to pass (cf. iv. 1-i. 1). The two parts of the epilogue (vv. 6-17, 
18-21), still following, conclude in a twofold respect all that precedes. On 
the one hand, the visions by means of which there is imparted to John the 
revelation concerning future things (ver. 6, ἅ dei γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει) are closed, 
since an angel, who, in Christ’s name, speaks with John, confirms the cer- 
tainty and importance of that which John has seen, and is to publish in his 
prophetical writing, and repeatedly testifies to the fundamental truth that 
the Lord is coming (vv. 6-17). On the other hand, the prophet himself 
completes his writing, in which, according to the command received, he has 
communicated the revelation given him, with the solemn testimony of the 
divine punishment of those who will either add any thing to, or subtract any 
thing from, the prophecies in this his book (ver. 18 sq.). But, as the Lord 
promises his speedy coming, the prophet answers with a cry of longing for 
this coming (ver. 20). With a benediction upon the reader, corresponding 
to the introductory greeting (cf. i. 4 sqq.), the whole is finished (ver. 21). 

2. The leading features of the plan, according to which the Apocalypse is 
skilfully designed, are clearly manifest already from this summary of the 
contents; but a more minute account not only is necessary for the establish- 
ment of the critical view of the complete and original unity of the present 
book, but also gives the most certain norm for the entire exposition, since it 
proceeds from the context itself. The question is especially concerning the 
central chief division of the book (iv. 1-xxii. 5); for the section from xxii. 
6 is to be regarded as the conclusion, upon which there is as little contro- 
versy among expositors as there is concerning the introductory design of 


INTRODUCTION. 11 


chs. i.-iii., although, of course, the meaning of the seven epistles (chs. ii., 
iii.), in themselves, and in their relation to the proper revelation (chs. iv. | 
1-xxii. 5), is variously comprehended. Yet this depends upon the view of 
the development and disposition of the central chief subject. John himself 
testifies (i. 10) that he has written the visions of his prophetic book on one 
day. It is never declared that in the course of the revelation of the future 
he has ever actually abandoned? the standpoint to which he was raised 
at its beginning (iv. 1),8 while it is self-evident that in his never-interrupted 
ecstatic condition, from iv. 1-xxii. 5, he yet can be conscious of a change of 
standpoint (cf. x. 1, xvii. 8, xxi. 10; and especially xi. 1 sqq., where the 
seer in his trance must even be active); and as, even externally regarded, 
the report of the visions in no way admits the meaning that the individual 
parts of the revelation are immediately recorded the one after the other, 
after John has received them through sight and hearing:* so the revelation 
described in ch. iv., in its inner formation, is controlled from the begin- 
ning on by a development having unity, and directly tending towards a final 
For the book of fate, at the throne of God (chap. v.), contains be- 
neath its seven seals just that which is to be revealed to John, and then to 


goal. 


be prophetically published by him; viz., ἅ det γενέσθαι, “the things which 
must come to pass” (cf. iv. 1-i. 1). If no one be found able to open the 
seals, the future also remains concealed from John (v. 4). But Christ, the 
Mediator of revelation (cf. i. 1), opens the seals, so that significant visions 
now appear to the seer, which describe to him the future things. If, in this 
entire fundamental idea of the book of fate, there is to be sense and order, 
neither can that which proceeds from the sixth seal already be regarded as 
the complete representation of the actual final judgment, —i.e., with the sixth 
seal, all revelation to its very end be once for all exhausted,®— neither can 
any thing concerning the future be revealed, which is not included in the 
book of fate, and to be interpreted as proceeding from the seals.6 The occa- 
sion for misunderstanding this formal fundamental law, controlling the entire 
composition of the Apocalypse, lies in this, that the sixth seal (vi. 12-17) is 
not immediately followed by the seventh (viii. 1), and that even the seventh 
seal does not bring, after the analogy of that which precedes, a vision that is 
definite and in itself intelligible, with which, then, the revelation proceed- 


1 Against Grotius and others, who wish 


to distinguish the visions by different 
times. 

2 Against De Wette, etc. 

3 But not i. 10-18, as Klief. proposes; cf. on 


i. 20. 


4 Against Bengel, Zrkldrte Offenb. Joh., 
Stuttg., 1740, p. 296 sq. 

5 As with Hofmann. 

6 Against Hengstenberg, Ebrard, and, in 
general, against the entire theory of a recapit- 


ulatio. (See author’s note below.) 


5 PY THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


ing from the sealed book of fate is to end, but rather, in another form (the 
seven trumpets), constitutes a new series of visions, or rather evolves them 
from itself. 

The same art, however, with which John at the crisis of the seventh seal 
opens, as it were, a new path, which in its beginning is based upon the 
conclusion of the first (viz., in the seven seals, vili. 1), meets us again at 
the similar second crisis; namely, where, after the close of the vision of the 
six trumpets (ix. 21), the seventh trumpet, and with it the end of the entire 
revelation, is to be expected. As, between the sixth and the seventh seals, 
a digression of essentially progressive significance enters (ch. vii.), so also 
between the sixth and seventh trumpets (ch. x.). And if already, at that 
first crisis, many an expositor loses the course of the argument, this danger 
is all the more imminent at the second crisis, as not only externally the 
peculiar digression of ch. x., where John is provided with new prophecies, 
enters as a distinct revelation, not proceeding from the sixth trumpet (xi. 
1-14), but also that which is directly represented after the blast of the sev- 
enth trumpet (xi. 15-19), may appear at first sight as the actual description 
of the complete end; from which, then, it would follow, that what succeeds 
‘ch. xii. forms an entirely new beginning, completely independent of the 
original plan of a series of seals and trumpets. There would consequently 
be a complete break between chs. xi. and xii. But this misunderstanding 
is obviated in a twofold way by the formal organism itself: first, between 
the fourth and fifth trumpets, three woes are proclaimed as still impending, 
of which the first two occur before the seventh trumpet; and, secondly, in 
the digression, x. 7, pointing to a new prophecy to all nations and many 
kings (cf. x. 11), it is expressly said that the seventh trumpet will bring 
the glorious fulfilment of the blessed mystery of God. But neither does the 
small section, xi. 15-19, contain the account of the fulfilment of the mystery 
of God, nor within xi. 1-14 do we find the demands of the prediction given 
to the prophet at x. 11 satisfied. On the contrary, the entire section, 
xii. 1-xxii. 5, contains all that according to viii. 18, x. 7, and x. 11, is still 
to be expected; viz., not only the third woe, which is truly analogous to the 
two first in seven vials of wrath, and with the same the detailed account of 
the final judgment of all that is ungodly, especially the definite prophecy 
concerning the kings and nations in the service of the beast which comes 
from the abyss (cf. already xi. 7, where the reach of the second woe extends 
across into that of the third), but also the description of the final glory in 
which the mystery of God is to be fulfilled. If, therefore, that which suc- 
ceeds ch. xii. does not result from the seven trumpets in the same express 
form in which the series of the seven trumpets issues from the seven seals 


INTRODUCTION. 13 


(cf. especially the remarks to ch. xii., in the exposition), yet not only is 
the inner connection with that original design maintained, but the external 
conformity is to be recognized besides in this, that, in clear analogy with 
the seven vials and the seven trumpets, the third woe appears in the form of 
seven vials. Thus it may be well said, in accordance with the original 
design of the Apocalypse (but, of course, without regard to the manner in 
which that original design is modified by chap. xii.), that the seventh 
seal, through the seven trumpets which also proceed therefrom, extends 
to xxii. 5. John, then, has seen all that is to happen; and the secret 
contents of the book of fate, sealed with the seven seals, are completely 
disclosed. | 


Norte. — This statement follows the course already indicated by Bengel, and, 
more safely and without his false side-look, by Liicke, Bleek, Ewald, and De 
Wette. It is opposed to the ancient and modern views which proceed from the © 
theory of the Recapitulatio. This theory, which has been and still is highly 
influential in the exposition of the Apocalypse, even to the most minute details, 
owes its importance to Augustine, who in his renowned work, the De Civitate 
Dei, I. xx., c. 7-17, elaborately discusses the eschatological expressions in Rev. 
XX., Xxi., especially with reference to the Donatist Tichonius, who wrote a much- 
read but lost commentary on the Apocalypse. “Τὸ recapitulate ”’ is the oppo- 
site of ‘‘ observing the order.”? Augustine (l.c., c. 14): “ΗΘ speaks by recapit- 
ulating, as returning to that which he had omitted, or rather had deferred... . 
That is, therefore, what I have said, that by recapitulating he has returned to 
that which he had passed over. But now he has observed the order,” etc. To 
recapitulate, then, is when any thing is described at a later, while according 
to actual chronological order it should be described in a former, part of the 
book. ΒΥ this exegetical canon of ‘‘recapitulation,’? Augustine attempts to 
remove the chief difficulty which he finds in the Apocalypse. ‘‘ And in this 
book, indeed, many things are said obscurely to exercise the mind of the reader, 
and there are in it a few things from whose manifestation the rest may be labo- 
riously traced, especially since it so repeats the same things in many ways, that it 
seems to speak now one thing and then another, although it is discovered speak- 
ing the very same things now in this way, and again in that” (l.c., c. 17). Reca- 
pitulation is not identical with repetition, although the Latin word repetere can 
be used also in the sense of recapitulare (l.c., c. 14); but already in Augustine 
' both belong together, so that he fixes the course in accordance with which this 
entire theory has been so elaborated, that, by the apparent rule of recapitulation 


1 Concerning the relation of the exposition which Beda especially (Zxplic. Apoc. Opp. 
under the name of Tichonius on the Apoc. of Col. Agripp., 1688, vol. v. p. 761) has taken 
St. John (Augustine’s works, ed. Bened., vol. the VII. Rules of Tichonius, cf. Lticke, p. 
iii., App., p. 13), to the original work from 995. 


14 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


and repetition, in fact the most immoderate and arbitrary freaks of exegesis 
may be justified. This is manifest already in Beda, since, mistaking the plan of 
the Apocalypse as a whole, because of a misunderstanding of the mutually 
interpenetrative construction of the seals and trumpets, he writes (Prolog., l.c., 
p. 761): ‘* Where, according to the custom of this book, it observes the order up 
to the sixth number, and, omitting the seventh, recapitulates, and, as if having 
followed the order, concludes the two narratives with the seventh. But even 
the recapitulation itself is to be understood according to the passages. For 
sometimes it recapitulates from the origin of the suffering, sometimes from the 
middle of the time, sometimes concerning the very latest persecution alone, or 
will not speak of what is much before.” If, therefore, according to this view 
of the plan of the Apocalypse, the last seals could refer to things anterior to 
those of the preceding seals, or if, in the book, the trumpets succeeding the 
seals, and the vials succeeding the trumpets, could be stated to be a recapitula- 
tion of things which in reality belong under the seals, a true regularity of plan 
could not be acknowledged in these references which intersect one another. 
But the theory of recapitulation and repetition was, in this respect, very skilful. 
How if the first trumpet and the first vial by recapitulating referred to the same 
thing that had been referred to by the first seal, and if thus a regular parallel- 
ism would be shown between the seven seals, trumpets, and vials? Even to 
this extreme was the recapitulation theory carried by Nicholas Collado,! who 
was followed by David Pareus? and others. By the three forms of visions, viz., 
seals, trumpets, and vials, says Nic. Coll., the Same thing is always described, 
and that, too, so that while the seals contain only a brief σκιαγραφία (sketch), 
the trumpets and seals always afford the more detailed images, to which then it 
is added, entirely in the sense of the ancient recapitulation theory : ‘‘ Not what 
will be before or after among these seven, but in what order of discourses and 
signs they were indicated to John.” The individual seals, trumpets, and vials 
correspond thus, each in its place, to one another, so that finally the seventh 
seal, the seventh trumpet, and the seventh vial in like manner concur in por- 
traying the end of all things. In the results of this theory, Nic. Coll. does 
not allow himself to be deceived concerning the fact, that the individual par- 
allel seals, trumpets, and vials, although represented as declaring the same 
thing with increasing clearness, yet occasionally express what, according to his 
own explanation, is directly the opposite. The fifth seal, e.g., speaks of the 
martyrs sacrificed by the Romish Church; but the fifth trumpet presents, in the 
figure of the locusts from hell, the Romish clergy, the mendicant monks, ete. ; 
and the fifth vial, finally, portrays a divine wrathful judgment upon the Pope 
of Rome. But there is only this yet wanting, viz., to place under this law of 


1 Methodus facillima ad explicationem 2 Comment. in divin. Apoc. Heidel., 1618. 
sacrosanctae Apocalypseos Joannis theologi, Opp. ed., Genev., T. II. 
ex ipso libro desumpta. Marg., 1584. 


INTRODUCTION. 15 


the recapitulating parallels, the seven epistles of chs. ii. and iii., whose close 
historical relation has long ago already been explained by most expositors as a 
mere foil! to what is, properly speaking, the prophetic contents. Yet this is 
done, not only by Ludw. Crocius,? Matth. Hofmann,? and Coccejus,* who 
accordingly assign seven periods to the entire N. T. time, but also by Cam- 
pegius Vitringa,® the latter of whom is pre-eminently distinguished for his 
advocacy of the theory of the recapitulating parallelism in the plan of the 
Apocalypse, since, on the one hand, he represents this theory in its most remote 
consequences by including also the seven epistles in this parallelism, but, on the 
other hand, sees the necessity of being cautious in the application of the prin- 
ciple which he urges to an extreme. Vitringa does not say that all the seven 
letters, seals, trumpets, and vials each in every particular place correspond with 
one another; since such a complete correspondence in the formal arrangement 
is not supported by the prophetic contents, as Vitringa discovered by his exposi- 
tion: on the contrary, he frankly modifies his judgment concerning“this, con- 
formably to the contents of the individual epistles, seals, trumpets, and vials, 
in the actual application of this principle of the recapitulating parallelism. 
Thus he frames a scheme of the book, which by its combination of the most 
accurate regularity, derived from the law of recapitulating parallelism urged to 
the extreme, and of the most confused irregularity, growing out of the inter- 
pretation of details that enter into the sphere of history, appears truly laby- 
rinthine. According to Vitringa, the three first epistles, seals, and trumpets are 
actually parallel. Then the fourth and fifth trumpets alone extend farther. 
The fourth epistle has its parallel in the fourth seat and the sixth trumpet, at 
the close of which the vials are inserted. The fifth epistle, fifth seal, and end 
of the sixth trumpet have as their parallels, the first, second, third, and fourth 
vials; the sixth epistle has its parallel in the fifth and sixth vials. Then the 
seventh epistle stands alone. The sixth seal and seventh vial belong together; 
and finally the seventh seal, parallel with the seventh trumpet, completes the 
whole. 

In this way is confusion introduced under one rule. And yet —to be silent 
concerning the older adherents of the system of Vitringa, as Joachim Lange ® — 
Hofmann,’ Hengstenberg, and Ebrard have turned back into this course, even 
though they very clearly differ in many places from Vitringa. Concerning 
Hengstenberg, who, in his theory of the groups of visions standing one beside 
the other, repeats the old recapitulation theory; and concerning Ebrard, who not 


1 [i.e., something of another kind, to set off mentary on the Song of Solomon,i.1. Opp. 


something else to advantage. ] T. Il. 
2 Syntagma theol., 1635. 5 ᾿Ανάκρισις Apokalypsios Joannis Apostoli, 
8 Chronotas apocal., Opp. theol., 1674. Franeq. 1705. Amstel., 1719. 
4 Cogitationes de Apoc. Opp. Amstel., 6 Apokalyptisches Lichtand Recht. Halle, 


1701, T. VI. Cf. also the Synopsis et 1730. 
medulla prophetiae Cantici, and the Com- 7 Weiss. u. Erfiill., 11., p. 300 sqq. 


16 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


᾿ 


only parallelizes the prophetic range of the epistles with that of the following 
visions (since the epistles interpreted as partly consecutive and partly synchro- 
nistic, i.e., describing conditions of the Church partly following each other chro- 
nologically, and partly co-existing simultaneously, are regarded as extending to 
the very end), but also places the ultimate end at xi. 15 sqq., within the series 
of visions (iv. 1-xxii. 5), — we will speak at greater length on the basis of partic- 
ular expositions of chs. ii., iii., viii. 1, xi. 15 sqq. Meanwhile we must here 
already judge how Hofmann’s view of the plan and of what is closely connected 
therewith, viz., of the prophetic relation of the Apocalypse, is, notwithstanding 
peculiar modifications, essentially like the ancient recapitulation theory. Hofm., 
whom A, Christiani! follows, divides what is properly the Book of Revelation 
(ii. 1-xxii. 5) into five sections: IL, chs. ii., iii.; 11., iv. 1-viii. 1; III., viii. 2- 
xi. 19; LV., xii.-xiv.; V., xv. 1-xxii. 5 (xv. 1-xvi. 18, xvi. 18-xxii. 5). The 
first part, viz., the seven epistles, refers? to the circumstances of the present: 
iv. 1-viii..1 proceeds to “‘the entire future,’’ as there is here portrayed ‘“‘all 
that belongs thereto, in order to bring about the divine mystery of our salva- 
tion.”” The three remaining sections (viii. 2-xxii. 5) refer ‘to the end,” with 
the distinction that viii. 2-xi. 19 contains ‘‘ God’s final calls to repentance be- 
fore the judgment; ”’ chs. xii.-xiv., ‘‘ the final struggle against the Church in the 
flesh;’’ and, finally, the section from xv. 1, on ‘‘the judgment of wrath upon 
the world, and the deliverance of the Church.’’ To one not more fully acquainted 
with the peculiar view of Hofmann concerning the nature of prophecy, it must 
be inconceivable how he could at one time say that the seven epistles refer to 
the present, but likewise * that ‘‘ corresponding to the seven pictures presented 
alongside of one another in the epistles, there will be in like manner seven 
forms of Christian congregational life belonging together, until the end of 
Church history, when the Lord sends the final trial upon his Church and the 
world, in order then himself to come,’’ ete. But if we receive the statement 
concerning the seven epistles just as Hofmann presents it, the recapitulatory 
character of his view of the plan of the Apocalypse comes into view at once. 
Just this view, which in our opinion harmonizes neither in general with the 
true conception of prophecy, nor in particular with the context of chs. ii., iii., 
viz., that the epistles continue to prophesy until ‘‘ the end of Church history,” 
declares that Hofm. already, at the beginning of the book, finds the end of all 
things. The second section (iv. 1-viii. 1), by recapitulating, starts again from 
the beginning, and brings us to the end, at which Hofm., in viii. 1, stands a 
second time. For the third time we reach the end in xi. 19, after a recapitulation 
has occurred for the second time from viii. 2; and after the third recapitulation, 
beginning with xii. 1, we come to the end for the fourth time. It will be suffi- 
cient to indicate the misunderstanding from which this modification by Hof- 
mann of the ancient recapitulation theory suffers, only with respect to the chief 


1 Uebersichtl. Darst. des Inhalts der Apok., Dorpat, 1861. 2 p. 376. 8 p. 324 sq. 


INTRODUCTION. 17 


critical point in the course of the Apocalypse, viz., where there is a transition 
from the last seal to the trumpets. This misunderstanding depends upon two 
hypotheses, which only with great difficulty can be regarded consistent with the 
context: (1) Hofmann regards the sealed book of v. 1, as not containing that 
which is represented to John by the visions proceeding from the opened seals, 
but that in the book something was written which could be known only after 
the opening of the seven seals, and must be realized by the events portrayed in 
the history of the seals; that the proper contents of the book are nothing else 
than ‘‘the new condition of things to which God is leading through the occur- 
rences of the present world.’ John, therefore, has reason to weep (v. 4); for, 
if the seals had remained unopened, ‘‘the blessed mystery of the future world, 
eternal life, would not have been attained.’’! But in this explanation the rela- 
tion of the seals to the book is not stated in accordance with the text. For, if it 
be not those very things that stand written in the book as the divine decree, 
which are made manifest by the account of the seals, it will, on the one hand, be 
very difficult to comprehend how, from the seals which then could be designated 
only as comprehending the sphere of what God has reserved, the mystery of what 
is written in the book, such rich contents as the visions of the seals show could 
proceed; and, on the other, it must also be somewhere indicated, that in the 
book that stands written which Hofm. wishes to find in distinction from the 
revelation of the seals actually presented to us. Hofm., however, not only has 
his conjectures concerning the contents of the book, but also errs in deciding the 
relation of the seals to the professed contents, by making the fruition or fulfil- 
ment of the glorious condition of the new world professedly described in the book 
dependent upon the opening of the seals. It is of course in itself correct to say 
that the mystery of God will attain its fulfilment only with the consummation 
(cf. x. 7) of all that the visions of the seals show to be future; but this is not 
altogether the aspect under which the book with its seven seals is represented. 
For in v. 4, John weeps, not because, if no one can open the seals of the book, 
its contents must remain unfulfilled, but manifestly because then they must 
remain unknown. (2) But even granting that Hofm. has correctly divined the 
contents of the book, and correctly defined the relation of the seals, yet it would 
not follow that the seven trumpets proceeding from the seventh seal do not 
introduce a new series of visions, and that at viii. 1 we already stand at the real 
end. Especially according to Hofm.’s arrangement (cf. also Hengstb. and 
Christiani), is such a conception extremely difficult. Hofm. finds already in the 
sixth seal (vi. 12-17) the description of what is properly the judgment of the 
world. If we leave out of view the fact that he forces into this connection all 
also of ch. vii.,2 and if we ask only concerning the contents of the seventh seal 


1 Cf. Christiani. is described, viz., both the believing who are 
2 Where, in the Judgment, in contrast with then still alive (vii. 1-8), and also the blessed 


the alarmed world the well-concealed Church dead (ver. 9 sq.), concerning which we are not 


18 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN... 


as distinguished from the professed contents of the book, Hofm. answers, 
“Thus the seventh seal can be opened; the last which still hinders the rolling- 
up of the book, i.e., the new world, can receive its beginning. This it was not 
for John to see. He only receives at the opening one impression, which is to 
make up for this vision: ‘ There was silence in heaven.’ ”’ In fact, the seventh 
seal thus has no contents whatever; it is only opened, not in order that the con- 
tents of the book may be seen or heard, but that thereby John, to whom what 
shall happen has been revealed in definite visions through all the preceding 
seals, may attain, by the ensuing silence, ‘‘an impression”’ of that which is to 
be fulfilled without his seeing it, and which, notwithstanding, is nothing less 
than the blessed goal both of his own and all other prophecies (cf. x. 7). Such 
an outline? of course urgently demands a completion, which is to be effected by 
“recapitulating.”’ 

The recapitulation theory is applied by H. Kienlen (Commentaire historique 
et critique sur ( Apocal., Paris, 1870. Cf. my notice in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 
1871, p. 566), with the modification that essentially there is but one recapitula- 
tion, viz., from vii. 1, after the close of chap. vi. has for the first time reached 
the full end. Kliefoth utterly rejects the theory, yet does not maintain entire 
independence of it. He thinks that the parousia has been brought to contem- 
plation already in xiv. 14. The first part of the Apocalypse is to follow the pro- 
gressive development of the Church up to the parousia; the last of the seven 
epistles (iii. 14 sqq.) is to represent the condition of the churches as they will be 
found by the Lord at his coming; while the second part, beginning with iv. 1, 
has as its proper subject the final events far in the future. The way to deter- 
mine the meaning of particular passages corresponds to this form of recapitula- 
tion proposed by Kliefoth. He rejects the arbitrariness of allegorizing, yet not 
only has many allegorizing interpretations, but even presents concrete declara- 
tions in a way that may be called schematizing. Cf., e.g., xi. 8, xx. 9, where 
there will be found a description of the city of Jerusalem ; but in this he has in 
mind the metropolis of Christianity at the end of time. 


B. The methodical disposition of the Apocalypse is further conditioned 
by the number seven, and the numbers three and four as its components. 
There are seven epistles, seals, trumpets, vials. Thus the fundamental plan 
of the book may almost be said to be projected according to the number 
seven. But in this similarity there enters a diversity, by the resolution of 
seven into three and four. The first three epistles are distinguished from 
the last four by the construction of the conclusion. In the seals, the num- 
ber four precedes, and three follows; for every time after the opening of the 
first four seals, one of the four beings, by whose introduction the scene is 


to make the mistake that the world, whose appears as still (vii 1) existing. 
destruction is described in the sixth seal, now 1 p. 12, 


INTRODUCTION. 19 


very significatively animated, summons the seer to come near. The first 
four trumpets, also, are distinguished from the three last: the latter are 
expressly proclaimed as three woes. Finally, in the vials, the first three are 
separated from the last four by voices which cease to be heard after the 
pouring-forth of the third vial. 


Nore 1. —It is incorrect, when treating of the art displayed in the plan of 
the book, to introduce still other numeral standards, which do not control the 
composition of Apocalyptic scripture, but belong only to its prophetic contents. 
The ten of the dragon’s horns, the seven of his heads, the two of Christ’s wit- 
nesses, ete., and all chronological numbers, as three and a half, five, etc., there- 
fore in no way belong here. This is contrary to Liicke,! and to W. F. Rinck,? 
who 8 wished to represent the entire course of the Apocalypse according to the 
standard of a great jubilee period, but, in order to introduce the analogy of the 
seven periods of seven,‘ prior to the great Hallelujah, xix. 1 sqq., is compelled 
to arrange the most heterogeneous subjects in a series: I. The Seven Epistles. 
2. The Seven Seals. 3. The Seven Trumpets. 4. The Seven Vials of Wrath. 
5. Babylon upon the Seven Hills and with the Seven Emperors (xvii. 9). 6. The 
Beast with Seven Heads (xiii., xix.). 7. The Devil as the Dragon with Seven 
Heads (xii., xx.). Numbers 5-7, however, in no way stand in one line with 
numbers 1-4. 

Nore 2.— Ewald has recently,> in an ingenious way, sought to trace in the 
Apocalypse a plan founded upon an extremely skilful relation of numbers. His 
view is as follows: The development of the entire future —viz., not only to the 
first end, the fall of Rome, and to the two other stages (viz., the destruction of 
the entire Roman Empire, ch. xix., and of all heathendom, ch. xx.) which 
also still belong to the beginning of the last divine end, but even up to this, 
which is the fulfilment in the proper sense — is revealed to the prophet in five 
series of seven visions each (iv. 1-7, 17; viii. 1-11, 145 xi. 15-xiv. 205; xv. 
1-xviii. 24; xix. 1-xxii. 5). Previous to these five series of seven each, there is 
a sixth series of seven in the seven epistles (chs. ii., iii.); and the whole is, as 
it were, framed by a seventh series of seven, whose first half (i. 1-20) forms the 
introduction, and whose second half (xxii. 6-21) the close, of the history and the 
prophetic writing. The five series of seven visions are constructed according to 
fixed numerical standards. These present themselves in the simplest way in the 
first two series of seven. We have here three small groups, viz., two introduc- 
tory visions (iv. 1-11, v. 1-14, and viii. 1, 2-6), besides three central visions, 


1 p. 407 sqq. Buch von der Zukunft des Herrn, des Neuen 

2 Apokalyptische Forschungen; oder, Grund- Testaments Siegel. Riga, 1779, p. 247 sqq. 
riss der Offenb. Joh. u. Anleitung zu ihrem 4 “ Wochenjahre’’ should be Jahrwochen. 
Verstdndniss. Zur., 1853. 5 Die Johann. Schriften, vol. ii. GdOtting., 


8 Cf. already Herder, MAPAN A@A, Das 1862, p. 38 sq. 


20 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


showing the real progress of future things (vi. 1-8, Seals 1-4; vi. 9-11, Fifth 
Seal; vi. 12-17, Seal 6; and viii. 7-18, Trumpets 1-4; ix. 1-12, Fifth Trumpet ; 
ix. 13-21, Sixth Trumpet), and finally two concluding visions (vii. 1-8, 9-17, and 
x. 1-11, xi. 1-14). In the first of the three chief visions, there are, moreover, 
always four parts (seals, trumpets): if we enumerate these singly, the result is 
ten parts for each of the two series of seven. This numerical standard lies at 
the basis, also, of each of the three other series of seven (xi. 15-xxii. 5), but in 
such a manner that these three series of seven unite with the two preceding 
as one great series of seven. ‘Taking into consideration the individual series, 
we find in the series xi. 15-xiv. 20, first, two heavenly introductories (xi. 15-19, 
xii. 1-17); secondly, three central visions (xii. 18-xiii. 10, xiii. 11-18, xiv. 1-5); 
and, finally, two supplementary visions {xiv. 6-13. xiv. 14-20). In like manner, 
in the fourth series, two introductory visions (xv. 1-4, xv. 5-xvi. 1), three cen- 
tral (xvi. 2-9, xvi. 10 sq., xvi. 12-21), and two supplementary (xvii. 1-18, xviii. 
1-24); and in the fifth series, two introductory visions (xix. 1-10, 11-16), three 
central (xix. 17-xx. 6, xx. 7-10, xx. 11-15), two concluding visions (xxi. 1-8, xxi. 
9-xxii. 5). We must, however, regard the entire group of the last three series 
of seven as one triple enlarged series of seven. If the question here were chiefly 
concerning a mere repetition of the scheme lying at the foundation of the two 
preceding series, the result would be, that just as, by a juncture (Anotenpunkt) 
in the seventh seal, the second series (the trumpets) are connected with the first, 
so also, by means of a juncture lying in the seventh trumpet, the addition of a 
seventh simple series of seven (the vials) follows. But for the proportion of pro- 
phetic views which are now to be mastered, such a simple form would be too 
short: it must be trebled. At the same time, therefore, in the expanded form 
it is indicated, that even if the course of the earthly development proceeds 
rapidly, and the beginning of the end (the fall of Rome) impends at a brief 
space, yet the true divine end itself appears as always postponed to a greater 
distance. Corresponding to this, also, is another expansion of the proportions 
of the original scheme. For, as we found in the first two of the five series, 
that in the seven there are at the same. time ten sections, so also we can like- 
wise recognize in the third series ten smaller sections, since the first contains 
the succeeding, or side, visions (xiv. 6-13), and the second, two sections (xiv. 
14-20); while the following series is so expanded as to embrace sixteen sections 
(for the first of the central visions (xvi. 2-9) contains four; the third (xvi. 12-21), 
two; and the last, — the supplementary vision (xviii. 1-24), — six small sections) ; 
and the sixth series extends so far that it likewise comprises seventeen small 
sections (for the first of the central visions (xix. 17-xx. 6) contains four, and 
the latter of the two concluding visions, though a small series (xxi. 9-xxii. 5), has 
seven separate sections). 

But such determination of its skilful numerical construction contains one 
error that is so critical as to unsettle the entire structure. Ewald errs when he 


INTRODUCTION. A | 


thinks! that seventeen sections are to be obtained in the last series of seven: for 
there are but sixteen; viz., two introductories, four sections contained in the 
first of the central visions, the two following central visions, the first final vision, 
and the seven sections comprised in the last final vision. If the sixteen sections 
thus given be accepted, then the sum of all the small sections which should be 
found in the five series of seven (viz., in the first three series, ten each; in the 
fourth, sixteen; and in the fifth, as stated, seventeen, but in fact only sixteen) 
would be, not sixty-three,? but only sixty-two; i.e., the sum can be referred no 
longer to a proportion of seven (9 X 7); and this means nothing less than that 
the standard of seven is no longer applicable to what is properly the chief part 
of the scheme of construction. But if Ewald is to obtain the erroneously 
received 8 number of seven small sections, he must, as he actually does in his 
division of the translation, separate the final vision into eight sections; i.e.; just 
in that very part of the work of art which appears to be the crown of all, the 
standard of distribution into sevens, according to which the whole is said to be 
planned, is laid aside, and exchanged for an entirely different distribution into 
eights. 

The entire scheme traced by Ewald in this way only reaches the result that 
the laws determining the regular art of the composer of the Apocalypse are 
applied with an arbitrary exaggeration to the very extreme of artificiality. The 
division and classification of the small sections according to the standard of 
seven, which Ewald undertakes, in many passages are in no way supported by 
the text. Why should we, e.g., in the vision of the new Jerusalem, enumerate 
seven (or eight) small sections, while such visions as chap. xii., chap. xiii. 1-10 
(where in vv. 8-10 a discussion of an entirely different character occurs), and 
chap. xvii., are each regarded as one small section? Ewald, moreover, mani- 
festly violates the order and meaning of the text, by connecting the section xi. 
15-19 with xii. 1-7, and regarding both as one introductory vision, inserted, 
according to a regular plan, in the very beginning of a new series of seven. 
With entire justice, Ewald indeed says that in the last seal and the last 
trumpet the points of transition for the fuller development are found; but 
this does not justify the complete separation, in the plan of the book, of the 
seventh seal and the seven trumpets from the first six, and the insertion of 
the seventh seal as an introductory vision into the series of trumpets (viii. 1), 
or the consideration of the final trumpet as only the opening of the following 
series. The section xi. 15-19 is hereby put in a false light; for this section 
has just as obviously a definitive signification, already illustrative of the end 
of things, as the following (xii. 1 sq.) points us forward, by communicating 
here certain knowledge necessarily presupposed in the understanding of the 
succeeding visions. In xi. 15-19, we have a real closing vision; in xii. 1 8α.; 
a true introductory vision. It is doubly false when Ewald separates the 


1 p. 47. 2 p. 48. 8 p. 47 sqq. 


22 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


section xi. 15 sq. from what precedes, and reckons it with what follows. A 
similar contradiction to the drift of the text occurs, when in chap. vii. Ewald 
finds the two concluding visions of the first series of seven. What is recorded 
in chap. vii. has nothing whatever to do with the preceding six seals, but 
throughout is directed to what is to follow. 

Contrary to the text, also, is the distribution proposed by G. Volkmar,} 
which, following Baur, is based essentially upon the hypothesis that the procla- 
mation from a distance, of the judgment of Heaven, contained in the first part 
(i. 9-ix. 21), is described in the second part (x. 1-xxii. 5) in its earthly fulfilment. 


3. The unity of this book, and that, too, its original unity, is proved by the 
methodical organism, in which the entire contents are harmoniously pre- 
sented from the beginning to the end. The entire Apocalypse is from one 
fount. A law of formal composition penetrates the whole;? a fundamental 
thought, an essential goal of the entire prophecy everywhere, is likewise 
prominent. The promises in the seven epistles (chs. ii., iii.) are full of 
references to the description of the blessed fruition (xxi. 1 sqq.). Their 
superscriptions mention the Lord of his congregations, not only in the way 
in which he appears to John from i. 12 on, but also in the same sense where- 
in he reveals himself in all the visions. The individual parts of the funda- 
mental scene, ch. iv., particular subjects and personal beings, constantly 
recur in the course of the visions, even to their end: a very marked being, 
belonging to the so-called second part of the Apocalypse (ch. xii. sqq.), is 
expressly mentioned already in the first part (xi. 7). 


Nore. — Grotius was the first to suppose that the visions of the Apocalypse 
were seen and committed to writin g at different times and places. The occasion 
for this view, which throughout is neither clear nor expressed in consistent con- 
nection, he derived from the twofold tradition concerning the place and time of 
the composition of the Apocalypse. As he found testimony on the one hand 
that ‘‘ John received and wrote the revelation at Patmos during the times of the 
Emperor Claudius,”’ and again, ‘‘ This happened at Rome under Domitian,”’ he 
regarded both testimonies as correct, and then referred the former statement to 
what was first, and the latter to what was last, seen. But what the things 
first and what those last seen are, he has nowhere stated clearly. On xv. 1 he 
states that all which succeeds happened and was written at Ephesus, but then 
says that it was during the time of the Emperor Vespasian; and on xvii. 1, 
xix. 1, remarks, ‘‘ At another time.’? That the whole was ‘‘ reduced to unity”’ 
by one hand, Grotius acknowledged, and expressly mentioned the Apostle John 
as this writer (on iv. 1). 


1 Comment. zur Off. Joh., Ztirich, 1862. SCE 17,8) With iy. 8; svi. 10; ΧΟ, 1.1. 
2 Cf. i. 1 with i. 11, iv. 1, xxii. 6. xxii. 6 sq. 4 Annot. oni. 9. 


INTRODUCTION. 23 


Vogel! sought more through inner criticism to distinguish four parts? in the 
Apocalypse, and to establish different authors; referring to the author of from 
xii. 1 sq., whom he regards as apparently the presbyter John, the business of 
editing the whole. Vogel’s hypothesis was attacked by Bleek,? who in turn 
expressed the view that the second part of the Apocalypse (ch. xii. sq.) was 
not written until after the destruction of Jerusalem, while the first part (chs. 
iv.-xi.) was written prior to that event. In support of this, he appealed not 
only to the dissimilar historico-chronological references in the Apocalypse, but 
also to the want of connection between chs. xi. and xii., which he attempts to 
explain by regarding the proper close to be expected after the second woe,5 
which must also have contained the quickly approaching third woe, as cut away 
and replaced by the now ill-fitting second part. But Bleek has himself expressly 
withdrawn this opinion.® 


4. It is only recently that the attempt has been made’ scientifically to 
characterize the literary form of the Apoc. by a definite technical term, — 
and that, too, in opposition to Eichhorn,’ who, as Pareus® before him, and Hart- 
Eichhorn 
distinguishes in the proper drama (iv. 1-xxii. 5; to which chs. i.-i1i. form the 


wig,!° wished the Apoc. to be regarded as a dramatic work of art. 


prologue, and xxii. 6 sq. the epilogue), first, a prolusio (prelude) (iv. 1-viii. 5), 
in which the theatre for the dramatic action is prepared," then three acts 
as follows: Act I. (viii. 6-xii. 17), Jerusalem is conquered, or Judaism over- 
come by Christianity. Act II. (xii. 18-xx. 10), Rome is conquered, or 
heathenism overcome by Christianity. Act ITI. (xx. 11-xxii. 5), the heaven- 
ly Jerusalem descends from heaven, or the blessedness of the future life 
which is to endure eternally is described. Eichhorn says,!* that the five chief 
2. The kingdom 
of Christ in its feebleness arising therefrom. 3. The destruction of hea- 


subjects of history (viz.,1. The destruction of Judaism. 
thenism. 4. The kingdom of Christ prevailing on earth arising therefrom. 
5. The kingdom of the blessed) would, properly speaking, have required for 
their presentation five acts, but that as John had but three cities (the earthly 


1 Commentationes VII. de Apoc. Joann., 
Erlang., 1811-16. 

2 j. 1-8, i. 9-iii. 22, chs. iv.-xi., chs. xii.-xxii. 

ὃ Beitrag zur Kritik und Deutung der Of- 
Send. Joh., etc., in the Berlin Theol. Zeitschr., 
vol, fi., 1822, p. 240 sq. 

4 Cf. chap. xi. 

δ xi. 14. 

6 Cf. Beitrdge zur Evangelien Kritik, Berl., 
1846, p.81. Studien u. Kritik., 1855, p. 220 sq. 
Vorles. tiber d. Apok., herausgeg. von Th. 
Hossbach, Berlin, 1862, p. 116 sqq. 


7 Cf. especially Lticke, p. 374 sqq. 

8 Comment. in Apoc. Joann., GOtting., 1791. 
Cf. also the Zinl. in das N. T., vol. ii. 2, 
Leipz., 1811, of the same author. 

9 |.c., p.31 8q.: Drama propheticum sen 
coeleste. 

10 Apologie der Apok. wider falsches Lob 
und falschen Tadel, Chenn., 1781 sq,, iii. p. 283 
Β4ᾳ. 

11. « Scena adornatur.” 

12 Finl., p. 369. 


e 


24 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Jerusalem, Rome, the heavenly Jerusalem) which were available as symbols, 
he had to restrict his drama to three acts. This view of the dramatic nature 


᾿ς of the Apoc., Eichhorn bases on the assumption that everywhere in the same 


there is action, and these acts following one another are seen in definite places 
of exhibition. But hereby Eichhorn establishes as his fundamental view, 
since the entire elaboration into details depends thereon, especially this: 
viz., that John saw his vision as a drama, but in no way that the book com- 
posed by the seer in which he gives a report of the scene is dramatic; the 
only question, therefore, is as to what class of writings the Apoc. belongs 
with respect to its literary character and form. Eichhorn can therefore em- 
phatically assert, as he himself says 2 in self-correction, that the Apoce. is “a 
description of a seen drama.” But even what the Apoc. reports far exceeds 
the precise artistic form of an actual drama; and as the interpretation of the 
prophetic contents given by Eichhorn, so also is the designation of the artistic 
form as dramatic, and the entire distribution into acts, scenes, and exodes, 
truly frivolous. Hence Eichhorn has found as little approbation for his view, 
as his predecessors for theirs. Even Heinrichs,’ who in other respects is 
entirely dependent upon Eichhorn, controverts* it. The correct point in the 
conception of the Apoc. as a drama lies in this: that the lifelike change of 
the visional occurrences and language, written in the book, has such clearness 
as to correspond to the idea of what in artistic form is properly the drama. 
Hence also, no one can deny that a certain dramatic virtuosity in the artistic 
form of the Apoc. must be acknowledged; and in so far we may speak of 
particular scenes, etc., in the book. 

Older theologians 5 have regarded the Apoc. as a letter. But the episto- 
lary greeting and wishes found in the introduction (i. 4sqq.) and at the close 
(xxii. 21) just as little establish the true epistolary character of the entire 
writing, as, conversely, we could conclude from the absence of such formula, 
that, e.g., 1 John is not an actual letter, but only a brief discussion. 

Liicke styles the literary form of Apoc. “ Old Testamental,” and that, too, 
“ prophetic,” and more definitely “‘ apocalyptic; ” ® particularly, that it follows 
and resembles the Ezekielian and Danielian form. Thisstatement of Liicke 
is unsatisfactory in proportion as an answer to the question concerning the 
artistic form of the Apoc. is expected in terminology derived from unbiblical 
rhetoric and poetics. Yet just that which is unsatisfactory in the expla- 
nation that the literary form of the Apoc. is apocalyptic, is instructive and 


1. 8. ἃ. Ο. 5., p. 334 sq. , Gotting., 1818, 1821. 
2 p. 896, 4, 0.2.}Ὁ.1; Proleg., Ὁ. 84 8q. 
8 Apocal. Nov. Test. grece perpetua annota- 5 Cf. Lticke, p. 376. 


tione illustr. Ed. Koppianae, vol. x. pp. 1,2; 8 p. 377 8q. 


INTRODUCTION. 25 


not without a good foundation. For the artistic forms by which the works 
of art of unbiblical rhetoric and poetics are appropriately designated apply to 
the biblical books only in inexact analogy ; since the biblical artistic form, 
which of course is present, is the organic moulding of matters which in virtue 
of divine inspiration are fundamentally different from the subjects of all 
unbiblical artistic language. Eichhorn, who regards every thing presented in 
the Apoc. as nothing else than pure fictions of a merely poetic genius, could, 
without any thing further, apply to the artistic work of the Apoc. the canons 
of classical poetics. But the more thoroughly the fundamental distinction 
between biblical and classical literature is recognized, must the standard of 
classical art appear inapplicable. Thus the subject is treated in Liicke, who, 
as he will not yield in “devotion” to the Apoc., designates its artistic form, 
not according to classical poetics, but according to its own nature. 

Since, however, the Apoc., like the prophetical scriptures of the O. T., 
as a work composed not without the exercise of human art, has an analogy 
to the works of art of unbiblical rhetoricians and poets; the literary form of 
the Apoc. may therefore also be defined by way of analogy, from general 
literary science. Even Liicke1 has suggested a comparison: between the 
Apoc., and the poem of Dante which the poet himself called a “comedy,” 
while he celebrates the world to come by the prefix “divine.” It is a pity 
that G. Baur, who has compared the Book of Job with Dante’s ‘‘ Divine Com- 
edy,” ? has taken no occasion to make passing references to the Apoc.; for 
what he has ingeniously elaborated might in many respects be applied here. 
If we still had the same terminology of rhetoric and poetics as Dante, we 
would designate the Apoc. as a sublime form of comedy. For Dante him- 
self declares 8 that he called his poem comedy, since the subject “from the 
beginning is horrible and repulsive, because it is Hell; and in the end is pros- 
perous, desirable, and pleasing, because it is Paradise.” Besides, “ the mode 
of speaking is gentle and humble, — the common talk in which even women 
converse.” Inthe sense wherein Dante calls his powerful trio “a gentle and 
humble mode of speaking,” viz., because it is the ordinary vernacular (locu- 
tio vulgaris, etc.), the designation is applicable also to the Apoc.; so likewise 
as to the subject of the book, the development through the terrors of the 
plagues and the judgment of wrath, to the eternal peace of the new Jerusa- 
lem. Accordingly the Apoc. is in the sense of Dante, as to contents and 
form, a real (divine) comedy.* But if modern poetics more correctly 
ascribes the poem of Dante, relating what he saw in hell, purgatory, and 


1 p. 391. 4 Thus even Joh. Gerhard designates the 
2 Stud. u. Kritik., 1856, 3, p. 586 sq. history of Christ’s suffering as a comedy in 
8 Quoted by Baur, a. a. Ο. 8., 618. five acts, because from a wonderfully. brilliant. 


26 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


paradise, to the epic class, in like manner may the artistic form of the Apoc. 
be designated as epic; a character which is not impaired by particular lyrical 
parts of the book,! but only heightened thereby, since, according to De 
Wette’s excellent remark, “ the parts exhibit in a well-executed way the great 
idea of the divine peace.” ‘They form the pauses in the epic course and 
movement of the whole. 

An unfavorable estimate of the Apoc. as a work of art has been made 
by E. Reuss.? 


SEC. II.—THE FUNDAMENTAL THOUGHT, THE PARACLETIC 
TENDENCY, THE PROPHETIC— ESPECIALLY THE APOCA- 
LYPTIC — CHARACTER, OF THE BOOK. 


1. The more difficult the understanding of the Apoc. appears, and in many 
respects actually is both as a whole and in detail, the more necessary is it to 
obtain from the writing itself, with the utmost clearness and definiteness, the 
fundamental thoughts sustaining and conditioning the whole and the details 
in contents and form. These fundamental thoughts John has himself 
traced with such strong, broad lines, that they are visible even in the most 
intricate parts of the entire description. In this way, the prophet has him- 
self given for the exposition of his book, not only the most inviolable norm, 
but also the most correct key, so that the hope for an agreement and essen- 
tial harmony between the interpreters who cross and contradict one another, 
is based upon the extent that agreement in the recognition of the funda- 
mental thought is possible. 

If, according to i. 1, iv. 1, xxii. 6, John beheld ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι (ἐν τάχει) 
“the things which must come to pass (shortly),” which therefore forms the 
subject of the prophecy contained in his writing, such varied contents seem 
thereby indicated, that a fixed fundamental thought reducing all the par- 
ticulars to unity apparently cannot possibly be present. This impossibility 
has been maintained by numerous expositors, who, as, e.g., Nicolaus de Lyra, 
have found the particular facts of ecclesiastical and secular history prophe- 
sied, by treating the Apoc. as, e.g., Aretius® declares: “If you look well into 
this book, you will see the fortune of the whole Church portrayed as on a 


beginning a blessed and joyful result follows; 2 Gesch. der heil. Schrift. N.T., Braunschw., 
viz., the resurrection. To the Pharisees, etc., 1860, p. 146. On the artistic ideas of the 
Christ’s suffering was a tragedy. Cf. £rkld- Apoc., cf. F. Piper, Hinleit.in die Monumen- 
rung der Historie des Leiden und Sterbens tale Theologie, Gotha, 1867, p. 17 sqq. 
unsers Herrn Christi Jesu, Berlin, ed. 1868, 3 Comment. in omnes Epistolas —itemque 
p. ii. in Apoc. Joann., Morg., 1583. 

1 The hymns, etc. 


INTRODUCTION. 27 


tablet.” From this standpoint,? from which no fixed fundamental thought 
running through all the details can in any way be seen, there has been 
devised the art of allegorical exposition, from which alone the entire fulness 
of the most special predictions was to be derived. Hence, even to Hengsten- 
berg, Ebrard, Auberlen,? etc., allegorizing is a necessity, because even these 
expositors, although to them the fundamental thought of the Apoc. is not so 
hidden as to the older expositors, yet misunderstand its true relation to the 
individual members of the entire prophecy, and likewise find in the Apoc. a 
proportion of particular predictions concerning which it is not amiss to say 
that the modern allegorists wish to regard the particular events * foretold, 
not in the light of ecclesiastical or secular history, but in that of the history 
of empires, and hence that their mode of exposition should be designated the 
imperial-historical.6 But the entire mass of future things (ἃ dei γενέσθαι), 
apparently lacking a fixed limitation and organic unity, not only receives by 
the addition ἐν τάχει (shortly) ® a more specific determination, but it is also 
undeniable that the entire prophecy tends towards a definite and more than 
To this must be added the undoubted rela- 
tionship between the Apoc. and the eschatological discourses of our Lord, 


once expressly designated goal. 


especially Matt. xxiv., and the analogy of N. T. prophecy in general. As 
now the Lord himself presents his personal return as the fixed goal for the 
hopes of believers, and this his parousia forms the fundamental thought of 
all his prophetic discourses unto the end;7 as, in the hour of his ascension, 
the two angels® proclaimed to the disciples the Lord’s return; and as the’ 
deepest and most essential feature of the entire hope and prophecy of the 
N. T. pertains to this personal parousia of the Lord, and all other eschato- 
logical questions, as, e.g., resurrection, judgment, etc., depend upon this 
centre,? — so also the entire prophecy of the Apoc. rests upon the funda- 
mental thought of the personal return of the Lord. As the proper theme of 
the entire book, this prophetic fundamental thought is explicitly announced 
from the very beginning ; 1° and where in the epilogue the deepest relation 
of the entire revelation is once more summarily presented, there it is re- 


1 Si probe inspicias hunc librum, videbis 
quasi in tabella depictam fortunam totius 
ecclesiae (oni. Q). 

2 A formal synopsis of Church history, ap- 
plied to Apocalyptic prophecy, was written by 
Joh. Jonston (Hist. civ. et eccles. ab orbe 
cond.ad a. 1623, Francof. 1678. Secular his- 
tory he gave according to Daniel. 

3 Der Prophet Daniel und die Offend. Joh., 


2d ed. Basle, 1857. 
Φ 


4 e.g., the migration of nations, the German 
Empire, etc. 

5 See below, note to paragraph 3. 

6 Cf. i. 3: ὃ yap xatpos ἐγγύς, “ for the time 
is at hand.” 

7 Cf. Matt. xxiv. sq., xxvi. 29, 64; Luke 
xii. 40; John v. 26 sqq. 

8 Actsi. 11. 

® Cf. 1 Pet. iv. 5; 1 Cor. i. 7 sq., xv. 22 8q.3 
1 Thess. iv. 14 sq.; 1 John ii. 28. 10 1, 8. 


28 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. | 


peated in the words ἔρχομαι ταχύ (“I come quickly”),! as also then, on the 
other hand, the entire answer of all believers to the divine revelation given 
in the prophetical book is compressed into one word expressing the longing 
for the Lord’s return: ἔρχου (“‘ come ”).? 


Nore. — Kliefoth’s exception (on i. 7), that the prophecy refers to the prepa- 
rations for the parousia and its effects, and hence that the parousia itself cannot 
be designated as the fundamental thought, seems to me entirely inapplicable, 
because, in connection with those very preparations and effects, the main question 
is concerning the parousia itself. Hilgenf. correctly recognizes the goal of proph- 
ecy, but incorrectly, and without foundation in the text, determines the goal of 
the parousia to be ‘the erection of an earthly kingdom of the Messiah.”” Even 
the thousand years reign of the Apoc. is not purely earthly. The error in Hil- 
genf. concurs with two other misunderstandings prevalent in Baur’s school, — 
that the account of Nero redivivus is the key to the Apoc.; and that the book is 
an expression of a decided anti-Pauline Judaeo-Christianity. But in the last 
respect Hilgenf. does not go as far as Volkmar. 


If the prophet thus himself presents the leading fundamental thought 
of his entire prophecy, it is scarcely necessary yet to indicate the particular 
passages in which this fixed basis becomes manifest. All the prophecies 
and threats which the Lord causes to be written to the seven churches pre- 
suppose that he will come. The entire manifestation of the Lord,* his 
designation as ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος (“the first and the last”), is the pledge of 
his coming to judgment, which also is indicated in this: that God is called, 
already in the introductory greeting,® and in the divine declaration ® sealing 
the principal theme? whose announcement precedes, ὁ ὧν καὶ 6 ἣν καὶ 6 ἐρχό- 
μενος (“which is, and which was, and which is to come’’).8 The definite 
relation of the entire prophecy to the future coming of the Lord is also 
established in the very beginning, where the revelation properly speaking 
begins, — viz., at the opening of the first seal,?— by the fact that the very 
first form which John beholds is the Lord himself going forth to victory; 
and again at the close, it is the Lord himself who goes forth from heaven to 
subdue his enemies.?° 

2. From this fundamental thought of the personal return of the Lord, 
whose further elaboration is to be more minutely traced under No. 3, pro- 


1 xxii. 7, 12, 20. 7 4.7, ἐθχέται (** Behold, he cometh”’). 

2 xxii. 17, 20. 8 iv. 8; cf.also xi. 17, where the ὁ ἐρχόμενος 
8 Cf. especially ii. 16, iii. 311, 20. is lacking because the coming is there cele- 
4 1, 12 sq. brated, although proleptically as having already 
51.4. occurred. 


6 i, 8. 9 vi. 2. 10 xix. 11 59. 


\ 
INTRODUCTION. 29 


A delicate sense of this 
peculiar paracletic office of the Apoc. is expressed in several ecclesiastical 


ceeds the paracletic force and purpose of the Apoc. 


statements concerning the use of the book in divine worship. Already in 
the so-called Comes, a pericope taken from the Apoc.!is in addition to Matt. 
ii. 13 sq. appointed for the festival of Holy Innocents, as the first martyrs 
for Christ,? and is retained by the Catholic, the Anglican, and other evan- 
gelical churches. Still more characteristic is the ordinance of the fourth 
Synod of Toledo, in the year 633, that the Apoc. should be read between 
Easter and Whitsun-day ; an arrangement which isstillinforce.4 The entire 
Pentecostal season in its joyful character resembled Sunday; and therefore 

fasting and praying on bended knees occurred as rarely then as on the Lord’s 
| Days.5 For not only when a Church festival is to celebrate the eternal glory 
of the martyrs of Jesus Christ, and divine vengeance upon their murderers, 
does the Apoc. have a judicial tone;® but as it was itself given to the seer 
on a Lord’s Day,‘ so also upon it rests the sanction of this Christian day of 
peace and joy, and it becomes the text-book for every Sunday of the entire 
Pentecost. From the very nature of the case, the paracletic element in the 
Αροο. is presented not so much in the great series of visions, iv. 1-xxii. 5, 
as rather in the introductory part (chs. i.-ili.) and the close (xxii. 6 sqq.); 
but while here the paracletic force of the prophetic fundamental thought 
is expressly and intentionally unfolded and applied, yet this makes itself 
perceptible also in what is, properly speaking, the main part of the book. 
When the prophet at the very beginning addresses his brethren as “a@ com- 
panion in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ,’® he 
This 
prophetic consolation appears formally elaborated in the seven epistles 


expressly renders the paracletic contents of his prophecy prominent. 


(chs ii., i1i.), whose admonitions, reproofs, warnings, threats, and promises 
all proceed from the fundamental thought of the impending coming of the 
Lord. In the θλῖψις (tribulation) ® sure to happen, and even already present, 
which Satan in his exasperation excites through the dwellers upon earth, 


1 xiv. 1 sq. 

2 Cf. E. Ranke, Das kirchl. Perikopensys- 
tem, Berl. 1847. Appendix Monum. p. lv. 

8 Cf. Daniel, Codex Liturg.eccl. Luth., Lip. 
1848. Tab. I. A. 

4 Cf. Liicke, p. 640 sq. 

5 Cf. the fragment from the writings of Ire- 
naeus concerning the passover: τ. πεντακοστῆς 
ἐν ἡ οὐ κλίνομεν γόνυ, ἐπειδὴ ἰσοδυναμεῖ TH ἡμέ- 
pa τῆς κυριακῆς, “on Pentecost at which wedo 
not bend the knee, since it has the same force 


asthe Lord’s Day.” Opp. ed. Stieren., T. I., 
Leipz., 1853, p. 829. Cf. Justini, Opp. ed. Otto. 
T. III. p. 2, Jen., 1850, p. 180. Tertullian, De 
cor. mil., c. 3: “ΟἹ the Lord’s Day, fasting or 
to adore with bended knees we regard sacri- 
lege. We rejoice in the same privilege from 
Easter to Pentecost.” 

6 Cf. xix. 2, and similar passages. 

7 i. 10. 

8 1,9. 

9 ii. 9, iii, 10. 


30 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Jews and heathen, and will continue to excite with ever-increasing rage 
against believers,! they are with patience? and watchful fidelity to persevere 
unto the end, to firmly maintain the words and commandments of their 
heavenly Lord, not to deny his name,’ to be faithful even to the end; 4 be- 
cause they know, and are assured most confidently by the present prophecy, 
that the Lord, who is the King of all kings, and the victor over all enemies 
both of himself and his people,® and who by redemption has made his 
people also kings,’ will in the end personally return, to execute just ven- 
geance upon all enemies,® and after their conflicts and victories to reward his 
faithful servants.? John, therefore, has good reason for so urgently com- 
mending to readers 19 his prophetic book, which in its most essential funda- 
mental thoughts brings with it such important comfort. 

3. What has thus been said concerning the fundamental thoughts per- 
vading the entire Apoc., and the consolation derived therefrom, may be 
claimed to be recognized by every impartial expositor. For even though, 
in an individual passage cited, the particular exposition may be urged as 
contradictory, yet the result, as a whole, abides sure, since what has been 
said concerning the Apoc. stands as though written on its very front; and if, 
to mention some great name, ErcHHorN states the fundamental thoughts of 
the book otherwise, he thereby testifies, not to the ambiguity of the subject, 
but only to his own rationalistic prejudice. We enter, however, a battle- 
field, when we proceed to more accurately state the concrete elaboration, in 
the Apoc., of the fundamental thought of the Lord’s personal return. In 
this lies the special apocalyptic character of the prophetical book; here is 
the special source of the controversy concérning the Apoc., with respect to 
criticism as well as exegesis. John himself expressly entitles his book 
prophetic ;11 as he writes, he employs a true προφητεύειν ( prophesying).12 He 
himself also indicates with what right his book can claim true prophetic 
authority, so that it is essentially on the same level with the Holy Scrip- 
tures of the O. T. prophets, as John also teaches nothing else than that the 
contents of his prophecy agree with those of the O. T.18 According to the 
biblical, and that, too, not merely the O. T. fundamental view, a prophet is 
one in whose mouth God puts his words, through whom God himself speaks 


1 Cf. xii. 12, 17, xx. 7 sqq. 9 Cf. all the closing promises in the Epistles, 
2 i. 9, iii. 10, xiii. 10, xvi. 15. chs. ii. 3, vii. 13 sqq., xi. 18, xxii. 12, etc. 

8 iii. 8, 10, xxii. 7, 14. 10 1, 3, xxii. 18 sq. 

4 ii. 10; cf. vi. 10 sq. 111. 8: 7. λόγους τῆς προφητείας, * the words 
Bexix 16. of this prophecy.” Cf. xxii. 7, 10, 18, 19: +. 
6 Cf. vi. 2, xiv. 1 sqq., xix. 11 sqq. Ady. THs προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίον τούτου, ‘the 
ΡΟΣ Wee sayings of the prophecy of this book.” 


8 vi. 10, viii. 3 sqq., xi. 18, xiii. 10, xix. 2. 12 Cf, x. 11. 13 Cf. x. 7. 


INTRODUCTION. 81 


in revelation, an interpreter, as it were the mouth of God.1_ This conception 
of the prophetic character, corresponding to the biblical conception of God, 
is that in which the Apoc. presents itself most definitely and expressly. 
For, what he writes in the book, John has not derived from himself: he is 
only the witness,? who, in obedience to a divine command, according to an 
express divine call, writes what has been divinely presented to his view, — 
what has been first on God’s part revealed to him. This John urges 
repeatedly in attestation of the truly prophetic character of his book,? and 
it is also expressed in the entire plan of the Apoc. For what are here 
proclaimed are future things (é δεῖ γενέσθαι) which have been previously 
ordained by the eternal, all-governing God, the Alpha and the Omega, just 
judgments, ways and works of his holiness, might, and glory, which, on 
the one hand, must of course come to pass, because he is the Alpha and the 
Omega,‘ but, on the other hand, are also a divine mystery ὅ enclosed in the 
seven-times sealed book. But, as when God in former times revealed his 
mystery to the ancient prophets, he proclaimed the final glorious goal of 
his mystery in a joyful message,’ so also God gave to John a revelation § 
concerning future things, which he was himself to prophetically proclaim, 
by opening the seals of the book of fate® before the gaze of the prophet who 
sees in the spirit,!° and furnishing him with the true gift of “ prophesying.” 4 
Still more definitely marked is this relation between the apocalypse of the 
divine mystery, and the prophesying of John dependent thereon, in that 
not only the form of the Apoc., the vision, but as its personal communicator, 
With 
respect to the vision as the form of the revelation and the mediating service 


first of all Christ himself, and afterwards an angel, is introduced.'® 


of angels, John stands in a parallel with the later prophets of the O. T., 
especially with Zechariah and Daniel, the book of the latter being even 
sometimes called the O. T. Apocalypse; and also, in the mode of imparting 
the revelation through Christ,. there is no essential distinction between John 


1 Cf. Exod. iv. 158q., with vii. 1; Deut. xviii. 
18; John xi. 51; 1 Pet. i. 10 sq.; 2 Pet. i. 21. 

21,2. 

9.1.1 Βη6.; xxii. 6 sq,; cf. iv.1, x. 8 sqq., 
xiv. 13, xix. 9 sq., xxi. 5 8q., 9, xxii. 1. 

41, 8; cf. xi. 15 sqq., xix. 1 sqq. 

ΟΕ ΣΥ͂Σ 

6 y. 1 sqq. 

7x. 7: τὸ μνστήριον τοῦ θεοὺ ws εὐηγγέλισε 
-- τοὺς προφήτας, “the mystery as he hath 
promised the glad tidings to the prophets.” 
Note the correlative conceptions. 

8 ἀποκάλύψις, 1.1. Cf. Dan. ii. 19: τῷ Δαν. 


ἐν ὀράματι THY νυκτὸς TO μυστήριον ἀπεκαλύφθη, 
‘¢ The secret was revealed to Daniel in a night 
vision.”? Dan. ii, 22: avros amoxadvgrer βαθέα 
καὶ ἀπόκρνφα, ** He revealeth the deep and se- 
cret things.” 

9 vi. 1 sqq. 10 j. 10, iv. 1 sqq. 

11 x. 8 8q. 

12 Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 29 sq: Προφηται δὲ δὺο 7 
τρεῖς λαλείτωσαν --- ἐὰν δὲ ἄλλῳ ἀποκάλυφθῃ 
«.T.A.: ** Let the prophets speak, two or three 
. . . if any thing be revealed to another.” 

13 j. 1, 12 sqq., vi. 1 sqq., X- 1 8qq-, XvVii. 
1 sqq., xxi. 9, xxii. 1, 6 sqq. 


32 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


and the ancient prophets. For,as they already pointed to Christ as the 
proper goal of their prophecy,} so from the N. T. standpoint we must judge 
also that the Spirit of Christ wrought in them that revelation from which 
their prophecy proceeded.? In the fullest and clearest way, this is applicable 
to the Christian prophets, whose fellowship of faith with Christ® is the 
On a 


Lord’s Day, it is made to John.* Christ himself appears to the prophet, 


first fundamental pre-supposition for the reception of revelation. 


and sends him as his servant ® to his congregations to which he himself, as 
the Lord and Saviour, will make this revelation.¢ Christ himself opens the 
seals of the book of fate, whose contents refer, even in that which essen- 
tially pertains to himself, to his return. 

Accordingly, in calling his writing an ἀποκάλυψις ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, John does 
not mean to indicate what we have in mind when we apply to it the techni- 
cal term apocalyptic. There the word ἀποκάλυψις has no special emphatic 
sense ; 8 and it is undoubtedly an exegetical error when it is taken in the 
sense of παρουσία, ἐπιφάνεια, and the genitive ’Ijc. Xp. as an objective genitive.® 
John expresses nothing else than the prophetic character of his book, when 
he refers its mysterious contents to the revelation given him through Christ 19 
The word ἀποκάλυψις, as a technical designation of a particular species of pro- 
In the O. T., the 


noun ἀποκάλυψις occurs in the corresponding verb dzoxadiatev, but not in a 


phetical books, is entirely foreign to all scriptural usage. 


religious sense; yet, even in its general sense, it appears as a correlative of 
μυστήριον.12 In the sense of the N. T., it is also impossible to speak of an 
ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου, as the oldest title of our book reads; yet even in the 
N. T., already, occasion is given for the later application of the technical 
expression. Paul presents ἀποκάλυψις as a special kind of divine operation 
alongside of προφητεία, διδαχῇ, γλῶσσα (prophecy, doctrine, tongues), etc. ; 18 
and just that which forms the fundamental thought in the prophetic book 
of John, is called in the apostolic writings the ἀποκάλυψις τοῦ κυρίου. Thus 


it occurred, that the book treating of that impending revelation, i. e., of the 


1 Acts x. 43; cf. Rev. x. 17. 

21 Pet. i.11; cf. Rev. xix. 10. 

8.1.1: τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιωάννῃ, “to his ser- 
vant John.” ΟἿ. 1. δ: ay. ἡμᾶς, ““ hath washed 
us; ν. 9: συγκοιν. ἐν τ. ὃλ. K. βασιλείᾳ κ- 
ὑπομονῇ ἑν Ἴησ.» “ οοηρδηΐοη in tribulation 
and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus 
Christ.” 

47.10. 

ΑΘ ΕΣ; 1: 

6 j. 11 βαᾳ. 


8 Against Auberlen, a. a. O.8., 81. 

9 /Of. QU Hesse 1:.:} COLs ἢν 07 }}1 ΘΙ Ὁ Ὑ; 
19, iv. 18. Against Heinr., Liicke also (p. 29) 
is not clear. 

10 Cf. Eph. iii. 3; Gal. i. 12. 

11 Dan. ii. 19 sq. 

12 Sir. xxii. 22; cf. xli. 23, xi. 27. A very 
special use of the term is presented in 1 Kings 
xx. 30. 

13 1 Cor. xiv. 6, 26. 

14 2 Thess. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 7; 1 Pet. i. 7, 13. 


INTRODUCTION. | 33 


coming of the Lord, which is itself called an ἀποκάλυψις ᾿Ιησοῦ Xp., 1. 6., a 
revelation communicated by the Lord himself, is designated absolutely by 
the title ἀποκάλυψις, to which then the name of the writer could be attached. 
Thus then originated the title ᾿Αποκάλυψις ᾿Ιωάννου, in no way corresponding 
to John’s meaning; and, in conformity with this ecclesiastical use of the 
term, the pseudo-John, who wrote an apocryphal Apocalypse, was able to 
employ it, when, without reflecting upon his bungling work, he fixed his 
title: ᾿Αποκάλυψις τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου καὶ εὐαγγελίστου ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ eoddyov.1 As 
a literary, technical expression, Justin? does not yet use the term ἀποκάλυψις ; 
but the fragment of Muratori already speaks of an Apoe. of Peter beside 
one of John; and Irenaeus quotes with the formula: “John in the Apoc. 
says,” ὃ although he still can speak of “eholding” the revelation.4 The 
adoption of the word ἀποκάλυψις as a technical literary expression is analo- 
gous with the use of εὐαγγέλιον, whereby in the N. T. confessedly nothing 
less is designated than a book, as, e.g., we speak of a “ Gospel of Matthew,” 
etc. ; but the ancient traditional titles * correspond much more to the origi- 
nal meaning, than does the title ἀποκ. ᾿Ιωάννου. 

But when the question is concerning the comprehensive statement of the 
special apocalyptical character of biblical prophecy, it must be manifestly 
unhistorical and unjust to proceed from apocryphal apocalyptical literature, 
by including with the Jewish products of that class the canonical Book of 
Daniel as the O. T. Apocalypse,® and with the Christian writings of that 
class the canonical Apoc. of John, and thus for writings of a different char- 
acter seeking the same so-called apocalyptic standard. Even Licke’ pro- 
ceeds essentially in this way. More correct is Auberlen’s ὃ view, above all 
things, to establish the pure conception of biblical apocalyptics ; but he pro- 
ceeds from Daniel, and according to that attempts to determine both what 
But the history 
of the origin of the idea of apocalyptics itself points in the opposite direc- 


is the same and what is different in the N. T. Apocalypse. 
tion. It is from the Johannean Apoc. that the name and idea of what is 
apocalyptic originate, and have been transferred to the Book of Daniel and 
the entire apocryphal apocalyptic literature which stands in most obvious 


dependence upon these two apocalypses in the canon. That is called apoca- 


1 ( Apocalypse of the holy apostle and 
evangelist, John, the diviue.’’) 

2 ἐν ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ αὐτῳ — προεφήτευσε 
(‘‘ prophesied by a revelation made to him”), 
c. Trypho, ch. 81. 

3 C. Haer., iv. 14, 18. Ed. Stieren, pp. 600, 
619. 


4 L.c., v. 30, p. 803. 
5 evayy. κατὰ M. (Gospel according to M.) 
6 Cf. Hilgenfeld: Die judische Apocalyptik 
in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung, Jena, 
1857. 
1.8. ἃ. Ο. 8., 34 sqq. 


8 p. 79 sq. 


34 THE REVELATION OF ST, JOHN. 


lyptic which appears to be like the book which designates itself as an 
ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Xp.: the Johannean Apoc. is, therefore, the norm according 
to which the conception of what is apocalyptic, both within and without 
the canon, must be determined. 


Notre. —It is instructive first to compare this with definitions found in 
another way. Τυὔσκε, who properly, and in conformity with the fundamental 
thought of the Johannean Apoc., emphasizes the eschatological element in the 
Apoc. prophecy, reckons further among its characteristics the circle of visions 
pertaining to universal history, the combination of prophecy and history, and 
that, too, of the past and present not less than the future: to which it is besides 
added, not only that it is not always clearly seen what is actually past, present, 
or future to the Apoc. prophets, and that in a pseudepigraphic way the entire 
prophecy was ascribed to some ancient men (as Enoch, Moses, Daniel, etc.), 
but also, that, even according to the ideal truth of the symbol, there are actual 
and even chronological particulars prophesied; as, e. g., the symbol appears as 
the peculiar form of representation, corresponding to the vision as the preva- 
lent form of revelation. On the other hand, Hilgenfeld justly observes that 
this entire definition lacks unity in the determination of principles, and that 
the Johannean Apoe. is neither universal-historical nor pseudepigraphical. It 
is his purpose? to characterize only the Judaic apocalyptics. What he indicates 
concerning the nature of apocalyptics in general, he does not expressly apply 
to the Johannean Apoc.; yet his opinion in this respect also can, to an extent, 
be discerned. Apocalyptics, he says, presupposes the conclusion of the ancient, 
national prophecy: it is a sequel and imitation of the latter. From ancient 
prophecy, it derives the form, the prophetic garb (so that the pseudepigraphic 
mode of composition becomes almost a necessity), and also the most essential 
contents; only with the distinction, that ‘‘the subject is no longer, as before, 
concerning the transient contact of Judaism with a great heathen power, but 
rather concerning its relation to an eventful and manifold worldly dominion 
passing from one heathen nation to another.’’ Jewish apocalyptics attempts to 
answer the question ‘‘ how and when the dominion of the world, possessed so 
long by heathen nations, will finally be delivered to the people of God.’’? 
According to Hilgenfeld’s view, therefore, what is apocalyptic is not truly pro- 
phetic ; the canonical prototype of Daniel, and the apocryphal imitations, he 
places in the same category; both kinds of apoc. writings are only copies of the 
national prophecy. According to this, an essentially apocalyptic element, 
belonging also to the true prophets, cannot be affirmed. But even what has 
been said concerning the apocalyptic fundamental thoughts is incorrect. Daniel 


1 'The eschatological Apoc. has chiefly to 2 8. ἃ. Ο. 8., 10 sqq. 
do with the future of the divine kingdom” 3 p. 11 sq. 
(p. 34). 4 Cf. x. 7. 


INTRODUCTION. 35 


does not prophesy the transition of the dominion of the world from the heathen 
to the people of God; and just as inapplicable is this to the Johannean 
Apocalypse. 

In opposition to Liicke, as well as to Hilgenfeld, stands Auberlen. He also 
regards apocalyptics chiefly with reference to the silence of prophecy in gene- 
ral; but he does not, like Hilgenfeld, make apocalyptics an imitation of an- 
cient prophecy developed from times wherein there was no revelation. But with 
him apocalyptics is regarded as the very highest summit of true prophecy : 
‘“the Apocalypses are to serve the Church of God as prophetic lights for the 
times without revelation, in which the Church has been given over to the hands 
of the Gentiles.”?! The O. T. time of the Gentiles is the post-exilic period; 
for this, the Book of Daniel is intended. The N. T. time of the Gentiles is that 
of Church history, the entire period until the end of days ; for this, the Johan- 
nean Apoc. has been given. Thus it becomes accountable how each testament 
has but one Apoc. Connected with this, however, are the facts, that not only 
the apocryphal imitations of prophecy appearing in the times destitute of reve- 
lation, chiefly took the Apocalypses as models,” but also that criticism and exe- 
gesis, in the absence of spiritual understanding, can most easily do injustice to 
the Apocalypses as the most wonderful products of the Spirit of revelation. As 
to the peculiar character of the Apocalypses, the result of their special applica- 
tion to the times of the Gentiles without revelation, is that they are, on the 
one hand, more universal in their sweep, and, on the other, more special in 
their description of details,? than other prophecy. What Auberlen® says con- 
cerning the distinction between the O. T. and the N. T. Apocalyptics, does not 
allude to the nature of the conception. More important is the chapter on ‘‘ The 
Nature of Apocalyptics,’ in which the dream and vision are explained as 
its subjective, and symbolism as its objective form.6 The prophet, says Auber- 
len, speaks only in the Spirit;7 but the apocalyptist is in the Spirit.§ ‘‘ Here, 
therefore, where the object is not so much an immediate influence upon con- 
temporaries, but a communication to all coming generations, man is alone with 
God revealing himself, and perceives only tliat which has been disclosed to him 
from above.” But the form of symbolism? shows in the Apocalypses, which 
have to do especially with the second appearing of Christ for judging, ‘‘ how 


1 καιροὶ ἐθνῶν, Luke xxi. 24. 

26*The times without revelation, which 
nevertheless retained the influence of its still 
fresh impression, in their efforts of imitation 
naturally preferred the more to turn to that 
part of sacred literature which had revelation 
for its subject, as here the most wonderful 
and exalted form of the then painfully missed 
revelation was found.” 


3 i.e., in foretelling particular facts, even in 


secular history, and chronological determina- 


tion. 
4a.a.0O.8., pp. 79-85. 
δ pp. 85-89. 6 pp. 89-101. 


7 1 Cor. xii. 3. 8 Rev. i. 10, iv. 2. 

9 Which, besides disclosing to the wise, at 
the same time is intended for a relative veiling, 
so that even to the wise its true significance 
is offered only gradually in its progressive ful- 
filment (p. 95). 


36 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


every thing natural must die, in order that the glory of the essential spiritual 
life may emerge.’’ } 

This entire discussion of Auberlen rests upon a conception of inspiration and 
prophecy which seems to us as unbiblical as the criticism and exegesis condi- 
tioned thereby are erroneous; yet our exceptions here concern only particulars. 
. 1. It is neither correct to say that the distinction between ordinary and apoca- 
lyptic prophecy lies in this, that the apocalyptist is in the Spirit, and the prophet 
speaks in the Spirit, nor that the apocalyptic form of revelation is the most won- 
derful and exalted. All prophets can speak in the Spirit, only by being in the 
Spirit: John, therefore, testifies concerning himself,? not that he is an apoca- 
lyptist as one being in the Spirit, but that he is a prophet like all the rest. The 
particular form of revelation, viz., the ecstatic vision and the dream, is not 
the summit, but only the lowest grade, of divine revelation:® in like manner, the 
symbolical form also of prophetic discourse is inferior to the non-symbolical; 
and that symbolism does not essentially belong to apocalyptics, follows not only 
from the fact that prophetic discourses of an apocalyptic form occur without 
the symbolical form, — above all others, the apocalyptic discourses of the Lord 
himself, —but also that there are symbolical discourses which are not of an 
apocalyptic nature. 2. Closely connected with this, is what Auberlen says con- 
cerning the peculiar contents of apocalyptic prophecy, and its designation more 
for all coming generations than for a circle present to the prophet. No doubt, 
if it were the office of apocalyptics to foretell by a universal survey, and at the 
same time by the special portrayal of details, the facts and chronological rela- 
tions of the history of the world, the church, or empires, such prophecy would 
have weight only with coming generations, and would gradually become intelli- 
gible by its gradual fulfilment. But John writes his Apocalypse for a definite 
circle of churches, with the express purpose to edify not all coming generations, 
but the contemporary congregations; and, on the other hand, it is to be emphat- 
ically denied that the Johannean Apocalypse intends to give either a universal or 
a special survey of history until the coming of Christ. The mode of exposition 
advanced by Auberlen can derive either from the text, only by the most arbitrary 
allegorizing. The pretended designation for all coming generations presupposes 
that the seven churches must be understood, in some sense or other, allegorically, 
—and even the geographical names of the cities have been allegorically inter- 
preted, — yet these universal or special predictions, in the sense of Auberlen and 
many ancient and modern expositors, are to be obtained only by interpreting 
allegorically the visions, which in no respect indicate their allegorical character, 
and by accommodating the historical circle of visions of the prophet, and the 
consequent definiteness and limitation of prophecy, by an allegorizing violation 
of the context. The former occurs especially in the accounts of the seals and 
trumpets; the latter, in the following chapters. 


1 p. 97. 24.10; cf. i. 1 sqq. 3 Num. xii. 6 sqq.; cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 2 sqq. 


INTRODUCTION. 37 


Just as certainly as the conception and name of what is apocalyptic are 
derived from the Johannean Apocalypse (which professes to be nothing else 
than a prophetical book), with historical justice is only that to be regarded 
prophetical and apocalyptic which is peculiar to this book, and yet has 
essential similarity with the prophetical writings of the Old Testament; viz , 
the fundamental thought of the personal return of Christ, and the consequent 
glorious and eternal fruition of the kingdom of God. This apocalyptic 
prophecy, on the one hand, can grow in its fullest and purest form, only from 
New-Testament soil, since the actual manifestation of God in the flesh, and 
the completion of the work of redemption, constitute of themselves the actual 
pledge of his final manifestation for judgment, and the eternal fruition of 
his kingdom ;* and, on this account, the prophetic discourses of the Son of 
man himself are in a model way apocalyptic,? and all the New-Testament 
Scriptures are no less permeated by apocalyptic prophetic thoughts.2 But 
on the other side, as Rev. x. 7 profoundly indicates, the apocalyptic element 
is native to even Old-Testament prophecy. The protevangelium (Gen. iii. 15) 
already contains the living germ of the entire biblical apocalyptics; but just 
in the proportion as, in the development of Old-Testament prophecy, the 
image of the Redeemer to come in the flesh is the more clearly presented, is 
the apocalyptic prophecy of the eternal fruition of his work and kingdom 
the more definitely expressed. This is true, even though the apocalyptic 
predictions of those ancient prophets, since the first appearing of the Son of 
man had not yet occurred, with moral necessity bear the limitation of not 
distinguishing with New-Testament clearness between the first and second 
coming of Christ. 

But this essential apocalyptic prophecy receives a more definite form by 
the relation in which the coming of Christ, and the fruition of his kingdom, 
are placed to the antichristian powers. ‘This reference in general is, accord- 
ing to the nature of the subject, necessary, because the coming of Christ can- 
not be thought of ὁ without his work of judgment, by which the victorious 5 
fruition of his kingdom is conditioned: but, in biblical apocalyptics, this 
reference to the anti-theocratic and antichristian powers appears also in 
more concrete embodiment, and that, too, in such a way that this reference, 
as well in Old-Testament as in New-Testament apocalyptics, is to forms of 


1 Cf. Rev. i. 5, 18, iii. 21, v. 5, 9 Βα. testimonies concerning Christian hope. 


2 Cf. Matt. xxiv. sq., vii. 22 sq.; John vi. 4 Cf., as an example for this common char- 
39 sq. acteristic of all apocalyptic prophecy, Ps cx. 


3 Rom. viii. 20 sqq., xiii. 11; 1 Cor. iii. 13, v. 5, 1 sqq.; Isa. xi. 4 sqq., Ixvi. 24; Matt. vii. 22, 
xv. 548qq.; Phil. ii.9 sqq., iii. 20 sq.; Tit. ii. 13; xxv. 31 sqq.; 1 Cor. xv. 25 sq. 
Heb. i. 10 sqq., iv. 9 sqq. Cf. especially all the 5 Cf. Rev. vi. 2, xix. 11 sqq. 


38 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


ungodly world-powers historically presented ; but in this, not only does New- 
Testament prophecy in general have peculiar pre-eminence above that of the 
Old Testament, but, even within the New Testament, the apocalyptic proph- 
ecy of the Lord—as that which is truly complete — has pre-eminence 
above that of John. | 
concentrated in Antiochus Epiphanes: on him and his blasphemous reign, 


In Daniel’s view, the anti-theocratic world-power is 


therefore, according to Daniel’s Apocalypse, the final judgment comes.} 
When the Lord himself speaks of his return to judgment, he applies the 
threat in his apocalyptics to Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, which had 
rejected him. He does not say, however, that the destruction of Jerusalem 
will be contemporaneous with the actual end of the world, and that immedi- 
ately after that event his kingdom will be completely established; but he 
renders prominent the real connection between that particular historical act 
of judgment and the final judgment of the world. He expresses the 
eschatological import, which the treading-down of the Holy City by the 
Gentiles has, more than any other event of history, to the parousia. In 
the Johannean Apocalypse, we find what is similar, although not precisely 
identical. On the one hand, John’s historical horizon is 50 extended as to 
embrace ‘not only antichristian Judaism, but also antichristian heathenism, 
which, in the form of Rome drunk with the blood of the Christian martyrs, 
stands before the eyes of the prophet. But, on the other hand, John’s apoca- 
lyptic prophecy 2 intentionally and completely discloses the demoniacal foun- 
dation of what is of antichrist among the inhabitants of the earth, so that 
also the judgment upon those demoniacal powers forms an especially impor- 
tant subject of prophecy. The synagogue of Satan are the Jews, who with 
blasphemy and deeds of violence prepare for believers the Lord’s tribu- 
lation; ὃ and in Jerusalem, where Christ was crucified, his two witnesses 


will be killed by the beast from the abyss:4 but the Roman secular power, 


1 If we suppose that in Dan. vii. 26 (ii. 34 
sq., 44 sq., vii. 9-14), the judgment of Rey. 
xix. 11-21 (Matt. xxiv. 29 sqq.) is described in 
distinction from that of Rev. xx. 11 sq. (Matt. 
xxv. 31 sqq.), according to Auberlen, p. 369, 
then Daniel’s Apocalypse would say, that, 
with the judgment upon Antiochus, the one 
But it is arbi- 


trary to introduce into the prophecy of Daniel, 


thousand years reign begins. 


from the Johannean Apocalypse, the ideas of 
the one thousand years reign, and of the two 
acts of the final judgment. The allusion to 


Antiochus is questioned by Auberlen and 


others, in ch. vii., but conceded by them in 
ch. viii.; the parallelism of the individual 
prophecies in the Book of Daniel decides, how- 
ever, against Auberlen. The acknowledgment 
required by the text, that the apocalyptic ex- 
pectation is greatly limited by the historical 
horizon, coheres with the conception likewise 
obtruded upon the book throughout its inter- 
pretation, that it is pseudepigraphic. 

2 Cf. also 2 Thess. ii. 3 sqq.; 1 John ii. 18 
sqq.- 

3 ij. 9, iii. 9. 


4 xi. 7 sqq. 


INTRODUCTION. 89 


deceived by the satanic false prophet, and worshipping the antichristic 
image of the beast, stands entirely in the service of Satan, and is the instru- 
ment for his rage against the congregation of saints.1_ Accordingly the 
final judgment proceeds, after Jerusalem has been trodden down, ?in such 
a way that first the great harlot Babylon, i.e., heathen Rome, is judged; 
after that, the demoniacal powers themselves, which were active in that 
human embodiment of antichrist, chiefly the beast worshipped by the heathen 
and the false prophet,* and then also Satan himself.6 The judgment of all 
the dead forms the full completion of the entire eschatological catastrophe, 
at which death itself and hell are cast into the lake of fire.® 

Two remarks are especially called for concerning this Apocalyptic con- 
templation of the antichristian powers, and the judgment upon them. 1. The 
judgment upon Jerusalem is presented, on the one hand, according to its 
inner connection with the proper final judgment. It belongs in the series 
of the three woes, of the second of which it forms the latter half.7 But, on 
the other hand, this judgment upon Jerusalem is expressly distinguished 
from the final judgment itself which succeeds. In general, the entire proph- 
ecy referring to the future treading-down of the Holy City by the heathen 
not so much predicts the future fact of its overthrow as such, as it rather 
interweaves it, in a peculiarly ideal way, into the chain of its eschatological 
development. 2. The concrete view of the heathen secular power under the 
form, present to the prophet, of the Roman secular power, which is expressed 
not only in the general description of ch. xiii. 17 sqq., but also in the most 
definite individual features,® appears limited by John’s historical horizon to 
such an extent that he already mentions 19 the last of the Roman kings, who 
in the near impending advent of the Lord! is to be visited by the judgment. 
The sixth king is the present one; the seventh will remain only a short 
time; the eighth, the personification of the beast, will be the last.?2 


Norr.— The proof for the above presentation can be given only by the 
exposition of the details from the text itself; yet so much should here be said 
concerning the nature of inspiration and prophecy, as is requisite, on the one 
hand, for the foregoing conclusion, and, on the other, for outlining the still 
deeper antitheses consequent upon methods and results of the criticism and 
exegesis of the Apoc. that are mutually contradictory. 


1 Ch. xii. sqq. 8 Cf. the Exposition from xi. 1-14. 

2 xi. 1-14, 9 xiii. 18, xvii. 9 sqq. 

8 xvii. 1 sqq. 10 Just as in Dan. vii. 26, 

4 xix. 11 sqq. 11 ἐν τάχει, ταχύ, “shortly,” ‘ quickly,” i. 
5 xx. 1 sqq., 7 sqq. 1,8, RX 7,12; 20. 


6 xx. 11 sq. a xh, 14; 12 xvii. 10 sq. 


40 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOUN. 


Auberlen 1 distinguishes, according to exegetical results, ‘‘ three main groups 
1. The LEcclesiastical-Historical, of which, in Germany, 
Bengel was the most prominent advocate, “considers the Revelation of John 


of expositions.”’ 


as a prophetic compendium of Church history.”? 2. The Chronologico-Historical, 
adopted by Herder, Ewald, De Wette, Liicke, Ziillig, Baur, etc., ‘“‘ proceeds from 
a conception of prophecy which excludes an actual, divinely-wrought contem- 
plation of the future,’’ and refers the contents of the Apoc. to Jerusalem and 
Rome. 
Ebrard, and Aub. himself, ‘‘ rests, as to its principle, upon the same basis as 
the ecclesiastical-historical over against the chronologico-historical. 


3. The Governmental-Historical,? adhered to by Hofmann, Hengstenb., 


It believes 
in actual prophecy. It also does not deny the possibility of special prophecy, 
but only that the N. T. Apoc., so far as actually presented, is intended as a 
detailed history of the future.’’ But against this classification, which unites, 
under No. 2, views the most divergent, and separates, under No. 1, those which 
are most closely allied, the most weighty objection may be urged. The chief 
defect is this: The exposition adopted by Bleek, De Wette, and Liicke is, on 
the one hand, directly contrary to the chronological-historical conception of the 
Apoc., as found in Grot., Eich., Heinrichs, etc. ; and, on the other hand, has 
correctly grasped the idea, in conformity with the text, of the kingdom of 
Christ, and its fruition at his return, as the chief thought of the Johannean 
Apoc.: yet what really distinguishes the so-called governmental-historical inter- 
preters® in respect to the Apocalyptic fundamental thought of the fruition of 
Christ’s kingdom, from Liicke, etc., is nothing else than what belongs also to 
the ecclesiastical-historical; viz., the pretended historical detail, which both 
governmental-historical and ecclesiastical-historical expositors derive only by 
vying in arbitrariness of allegorizing with some of the chronologico-historical 
expositors,* against which Bleek, Lucke, and De Wette constantly contend. 
Naturally, the critical and exegetical conceptions of the Apoc. are distinguished 
according to the attitude which they take to the peculiar prophetic character 
which the book claims, and to the Apocalyptic fundamental thought which 
throughout pervades it. 1. By the rationalistic conception of inspiration and 
prophecy, the prophetical character which the Apoc. claims for itself is directly 
denied, and its fundamental thought entirely explained away. If John says 
that he was in the Spirit, this is grata fraus® (a pleasing delusion), All the pro- 

1 p. 411 sq. 7 


expositors. For in principle it is the same, 


2 Cf., against this view, Baur, Die reichs- 
geschichtl. Auffassung der Apok. Theol. Jahr- 
biicher, xiv., Tiib , 1855; 2, p. 283 sqq. 

3 Among whom it is difficult to reckon Hof- 
mann, since he virtually refers the whole Apoc., 
not to the course of history unto the end, but 
only to the end itself; and also in one special 
point agrees with the chronologico-historical 


whether the antichrist of the Apoc. be re- 
garded as Nero returned, — which Aub. pro- 
poses as probably the chronologico-historical 
interpretation most properly so called, — or as 
Antiochus Epiphanes returned. (Hofm., ii. 
345.) 

4 Grot., Eich., Herder, Heinrichs, etc. 


5 Hich. on iv. 1. 


INTRODUCTION. 41 


fessed visions are, in fact, nothing but fictions of a poetic genius; for by all those 
symbolical pictures the author represents ‘‘a future event, towards which all 
_ Christians looked forward with confidence; viz., the victory of Christianity over 
Judaism and heathenism.’?! When it is said in the Apoc., that Christ will be 
victorious, this is only a metonymy common ‘‘ even in prosaic discourse,’’ which 
is to be understood in the same way of ‘‘ Christianity,’’ as Jerusalem and Rome, 
by metonymy or symbolically, indicate Judaism and heathenism.2 Upon this 
purely rationalistic standpoint, Grot. already stood, who, therefore, in the expo- 
2. It is 
according to a magical conception of inspiration and prophecy, that those whom 


sition of particulars, often agrees in a surprising way with Eich.® 


Auberlen calls the ecclesiastical-historical and governmental-historical inter- 
preters, give their exposition. ‘There are found in the Apoc. the most special, 
and even chronological, predictions, which are fulfilled in the course of all time, 
from John’s present even to the parousia. By allegorical interpretation, these 
predictions are derived from the text, as, conversely, the historical allusions of 
the Apoc. are accommodated by an allegorical interpretation to John’s present. 
Upon this standpoint we find N. de Lyra, and after him chiefly the old Prot- 
estant expositors, with their applications to the Turks and the Pope;* then 
Bengel, with his Apocalyptic chronology; and in modern times, Hengstenb., 
Ebrard, Auberlen, and Hofmann: and if these, as a class, substitute general 
conceptions (powers, potencies, tendencies, etc.) for the definite forms invented 
by the older interpreters of the same class, yet recently H. J. Graber® has again 
made the Turks and the Pope the chief subjects of the book. 3. It is from an 
ethical ® conception of inspiration, that the present attempt at an exposition of 
the Apoc. will proceed, in connection with the labors of Bleek, De Wette, and 
especially of Licke. In the most decided opposition to the above rationalistic 
denial of actual inspiration, the true prophetical character of the Apoc. will be 
here acknowledged, although understood otherwise than in the magical sense. 


1 Hich., Ein., p. 338. 2a.a.O.8., 332. 4 Cf.,e.g., Nic. Collado, 1. ¢., Ὁ. 32: Totum 


8 Cf., 6. g., on i. 7.: Aderit cum magna 
tempestate adversus incredulos Judaeos et 
Romanos, ‘‘ He will come with a great tem- 
pest against unbelieving Jews and Romans.” 
On iii. 12: Sensus est, eos guiin persecutione 
Neroniana constantes fuerint, visuros Spiritu 
prophetico, quomodo Deus secundum sua 
promissa triumphaturus sit de Judaeis et Ro- 
manis, quod praecipuum est Apocalypseos 
argumentum (‘‘The sense is, that they who 
in the Neronian persecution have been stead- 
fast will see, by the prophetic Spirit, how God, 
according to his promises, will triumph over 
Jews and Romans, which is the chief argu- 
ment of the Apocalypse ’’). 


hunce librum spectare praecipue ad describen- 
dam tyrannidem spiritualem Romani papa- 
tus et totius cleri ejus (*‘ That this entire book 
is directed chiefly to the description of the 
spiritual tyranny of the Pope of Rome and: of 
all his clergy ’’). 

5 Vers. einer historischen Erkl. der Of. 
des Joh., Heidelb. 1857. Cf. also Ch. Paulus, 
Blicke in die Weissagung der Off. des Joh., 
Stuttg. 1857. J. Ph. Sabel, Die Offend. Joh, 
aus dem Zusammenhange der messian- 
Reichsgeschichte, Heidelb., 1861. 

6 Cf. my treatise: De Rei propheticae in 
Vet. Test.— natura ethica, Apologet. Beitrag, 
i., GOtt., 1865. 


42 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


If Bengel! can decide that particular expressions of prophetic language, as 
angels, heaven, sun, etc., like ‘‘ counters,’’ mean sometimes one thing and again 
another,? this is here denied just as decidedly as, 6. g., the possibility that John 8 
could have written the name of the beast by the number 666, but could not 
himself have been acquainted with it. These examples mark the distinction 
between a magical and an ethical conception of revelation. According to the 
former, what the prophet beholds is presented externally to him as a foreign 
object: he can behold every thing that the divine revelation will show him, and 
declare what he has beheld. According to the ethical view of the subject, the © 
_ prophetic vision which appears by means of divine inspiration in the spirit of 
the prophet is conditioned by the entire subjectivity of the man; what the 
prophet writes is not a pure ‘‘copy”’’ of a heavenly book,® but a divinely 
human product of his activity supported by the inspiring Spirit of God, in which 
the prophetic writer acts also in accordance with his human knowledge of art. 
According to a magical conception of revelation, the question why the little 
book eaten by John was in his mouth sweet, but in his belly became bitter,® 
may be answered,’ ‘‘ that the mouth of the seer was consecrated to his calling, 
but his belly belonged to the earthly world.’’ On the other hand, in an ethical 
way, inspiration appears to be such as to sanctify and guide equally the entire 
indivisible personality of man in all his powers, the will as well as the intellect, 
the reason as well as the conscience and imagination, speech as well as writing 
and acting. Accordingly, the particular visions which John describes must be 
received for what he himself gives them; he has actually seen every thing, and 
the visions are not mere fabrications. But the subjects contemplated have, as 
is usual, assumed a form according to the standard of the human subjectivity 
of the prophet. John, e. g., in ch. iv., beholds, and therefore describes, the 
cherubim in no other way than Ezekiel, but in their subjective truth; while but 
one of the two prophets could speak without error when the question was con- 
cerning objective reality. If, also, the visions in which John has beheld the 
individual plagues preceding the parousia of the Lord, have undoubtedly pre- 
sented themselves, just as he testifies, to his spirit enlightened by God, it would 
only be a consequence therefrom, that every individual vision would contain a 
definite prophecy, to be actually fulfilled; unless the fantasy of a prophet be 
not touched by the inspiring Spirit of God, just as well as every other faculty of 
his inner man, and there would not therefore be a poesy produced and sancti- 


1a.a.0.8., 89. on viii. 10), ““ Jews” (BGhmer on vi. 12), “" sov- 
2 The earth is made to signify ‘* Asia’’ ereigns’’ (Hengstb.), etc. 
(Beng.), ‘‘the Jews’”’ (Alcasar), “‘ the godly ” ὃ Rev. xiii. 18. 
(Aretius), “186 Christian part of the earth” 4 Hofm., a.a.O.II., p. 312. Likewise Klie- 
(Vitr.), ‘*Europe” (Launoi), the ‘godly foth, Theol. Zeitschr., 1862, p. 83. Christiani. 
world” (Stern), ete. The stars signify ‘‘ the 5 Bengel, a. a. O.5S., 319. 
teachers of the church” (Aretius on vi. 12), 6 x. 9 sq. 


«heretics ’’ (Bede on viii. 2), ‘‘ bishops ”’ (Stern 7 Hofm., ii. p. 342. §& Eich., Ewald, ete. 


Sd 


INTRODUCTION. 43 


fied by the Spirit of God, which lends to the proclaimed truth the elevated 
beauty of a truly suitable form. The poesy of the writer of the Apocalypse 
stands in the same living relation to the subject of his prophecy as the rhetoric 
of a Paul or a John to the contents of their evangelical message and consoling 
Connected with this, also, is the fact that the writer of the Apoca- 
lypse, without injury to his actual character as prophet, is customarily limited 
by his historicai horizon. A true prophet does not assume what the Sibyl boasts 
of herself: — 


discourse. 


Oida ἐγὼ ψάμμων τ᾽ ἀριθμοὺς Kat μέτρα θαλάσσης, 
6.0” ἀριθμοὺς ἄστρων καὶ δένδρεα καὶ πόσα φύλλα, κ.τ.}.1 


Hence John does not prophesy what many expositors, in spite of the express 
warning of the Lord, have tried to decipher from the Apoc.; viz., the day and 
the hour of the establishment of his kingdom.? But he errs in regarding the 
form of the Roman Empire present to him as the last of its kind, because of 
the speedily approaching manifestation of the Lord himself to subdue all. Con- 
nected with this error is the truth of a morally understood inspiration, since this 
sunders man not from the natural fundamental condition of his individual 
personality; but what we dare not expect from a prophet is, e. g., the delusion 
ridiculed by cultivated heathen, that the deceased Emperor Nero,’ or Antiochus 
Epiphanes,*‘ shall return as antichrist. 

The anti-Pauline Judaeo-Christian tendency of the Apocalypse, emphasized 
by the school of Baur for critical interests, is derived neither from the pre- 
supposed. number of the twelve apostles (xxi. 14), nor from the polemical 
expressions of the epistles (ii. 2, 6, 14, etc.). The objectively firmly established 
number of the apostles is manifest even in Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5). The expressions 
against heretical manifestations, however we may decide concerning their con- 
troversial interpretation, are not, in any case, to be turned to account for the 
purpose of the school of Baur, because the free evangelical view of Paul con- 
cerning the φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθ. has ethical limitations, of which the heretical liber- 
tines of the Apocalypse wanted to know nothing, while in respect to the πορνεῦσαι 
the Apostle Paul speaks as decidedly as the author of the Apocalypse. 
respect did Paul declare πορνεία permissible (against Hilgenf.’s mutilated presen- 
tation, Hinl., p. 415). That the Judaic Christianity of the Apocalypse is not 
anti-Pauline and anti-evangelical, is manifest from the fact that the new Jeru- 


In no 


1 (“JT know the numbers of the sands, and 
the measures of the sea, 
I know the numbers of the stars, and how 
many trees and leaves.’’) 
1. viii. p. 749. Sibylline Oracles, Op. et Stud. 
Servatii Gallaei, Amst. 1689. 


2 The artificialness with which an iuvestiga- 


tor of Scripture otherwise so excellent as 
Bengel (Ordo temporum, Stuttg., 1741, p. 
303 sq.) seeks to weaken the clearest Scripture 
passages (Mark xiii. 82; Acts i. 7) is without 
a parallel, 

3 Ewald, Liicke, De Wette. 

4 Hofmann. 


44 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


salem appears without a temple (xxi. 22). This is also contrary to E. Renan, 
Der Antichrist, Ger. ed., Leipzig and Paris, 1873 (p. xxvii, ‘‘The Apocalypse 


breathes dreadful hatred towards Paul,” etc.). 


SEC. III. — ORIGINAL INTENTION AND ORIGIN OF THE 
APOCALYPSE. 


1. As to the original destination of the Apocalypse, — by which we under- 
stand not only the circle of readers according to its external local limitations, 
but also the purpose of the book, occasioned by these concrete circumstances 
and events, — we need especially speak only in a few words, since this original 
destination, which can be gathered with greater evidence from the context, is 
of importance in the examination of the difficult and controverted questions 
concerning its origin, and especially its author and the time of composition. 
The circle of readers in Asia Minor is expressly mentioned in the Apocalypse 
itself ;1 for even though the number seven of the congregations should have a 
definite typical significance, and correspond to the relation to the universal. 
Church, peculiar to the Apocalypse by virtue of its fundamental thought, as 
well as asserted by itself,2 yet the simple geographical destination in the 
text is the less to be explained away by any sort of allegorizing theory, as 
that typical reference to the universal Church is undoubtedly based? upon 
the firm foundation of fixed historical relations.* 

The inner purpose of the Apoc. is also to be clearly recognized from the 
text itself. 
ing the impending return of the Lord, discussed in Sec. 2, 2, serves the pur- 


The paracletic elaboration of the fundamental thought concern- 


pose expressed already in the introduction and conclusion, and occasionally 
in other passages,> partly of encouraging and strengthening in fidelity, by 
the hope of the Lord’s return, the seven churches, and still further the entire 
Church, in the distress already present and yet to be expected from the un- 
christian world (Jews and heathen), and partly, also,® to reprove and reform 


1 j. 4,11; chs. ii. and iii. 

5. Of7i. 3, xxit. 7, 16 :sqq. 

3 See on i. 4, 11, 20. 

4 Hengstb. (i. 83), who also errs in stating 
that what is said in i. 4 sqq. refers not to the 
entire Apoc., but only to chs. ii. and iii., says, 
‘’ When John wrote to the seven churches, 
he had already before his eyes the model of 
the seven catholic and the fourteen Pauline 
epistles, including the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
which, though even not altogether directly, yet 
The ar- 


bitrariness in this critical judgment (which 


proceeded from Paul as its source.” 


not only presupposes that John had our canon 
of epistles, but also obtrudes upon the same 
an entirely senseless allusion to a simple and 
double enumeration of seven of those letters) 
is so great that Liicke (p. 421) not even once 
correctly understands Hengstb.’s real mean- 
ing. Cf., on the other hand, Bleek, Studien 
u. Kritiken, 1855, p. 168. 
Muratori thinks that Paul followed John, as 


the former also wrote his letters to seven 


The fragment of 


different churches. 
5 Cf. i. 3,9, chs. ii. and iii, xvi. 15, xxii. 7, 


10 sqq. 6 Cf. the seven epistles. 


INTRODUCTION. 45 


the inner evils of the churches themselves, to guard and establish their good 
circumstances, and in general so to teach and guide those redeemed by 
Christ, that they may receive the blessed reward with which the Lord is to 
come.! The end of the Apoc. is therefore, even apart from the special inner 
relations of the seven churches, in so far a peculiar one, as the tribulation 
already suffered, and still impending, is the immediate occasion to which the 
rich fundamental thoughts concerning the personal advent of the Lord are 
so emphatically applied in consolatory hope and earnest warning, that the 
prophetic comfort contained in the entire book refers to that end;? but, on 
the other hand, no N. T. consolatory work is conceivable which does not 
serve, at least indirectly, to lead believers to the coming Lord, to whom they 
belong, and that, too, as must necessarily occur from the nature of the oppo- 
sition between the kingdom of Christ and the world, through the very midst 
of unavoidable trouble. Thus the Apoc., in its end, has that exclusively 
and immediately which in all other N. T. literature appears as an indis- 
pensable, special (apocalyptic) item.® 

2. The question concerning the original destination of the Apoc. leads 
back to the final critical question concerning the origin of the book, i.e., 
concerning its author, and the time and place of its composition. As the 
author of the Apoc.‘ belongs, as to his station in life, to the geographical 
circle in which are his first readers, and this circle belongs to a definite time, 
viz., the apostolic-Johannean, the question arises of itself, as to whether 
John, who announces himself as the author, is to be regarded as the apostle 
or not, —a question for whose answer it is highly important to determine, 
as far as possible, the time of the composition of the book, in its relation to 
the time ὅ during which the Apostle John labored in Asia Minor. 

Criticism is here occupied with the testimony of the book concerning itself, 
and the testimonies of ecclesiastical tradition. Every expression® of the 
book concerning itself appears doubtful, in the degree that the exposition, 
both as a whole and in particulars, is a matter of controversy, while the tes- 
timonies of tradition are in complete agreement neither with one another, 
nor with the statements of the book itself. If now, in the latter case, the 
book’s own testimony is to be unconditionally preferred to that of tradition, 
the critical investigation will be the more difficult in proportion as the wit- 


1 xxii. 12. 4 Cf. i. 9. 


2 j.e., itis of an Apocalyptic nature. 5 In itself, indeed, likewise uncertain. 
8 Cf. 1 Cor. i. 8; 2 Cor. iv. 14 sqq., v. 10, 6 Jn their discussion we can and must dis- 


xi. 2; Phil. iii. 20 sq.; 2 Tim. ii. 9 sqq.; 1 Pet. tinguish what refers to the time and place of 
i. 18 sqq., iv. 12 sqq.; Jas. v. 7 sqq.; 1 John composition, from those referring to the per- 
fi. 28. son of the composer. 


46 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


ness contradicting the book is, perhaps because of his age, the more impor- 
In addition to 
such exegetical and historical difficulties, is the consideration that the Apoc., 
by reason of its peculiar prophetical character, manifestly serves as a touch- 


tant, and the origin of his error can be less readily traced. 


stone by which to test the entire theological culture of critics and exegetes, 
and, even apart from scientific elaboration, contains rich material as certainly 
for the pure hope of the Christian faith, as it does apparently for a curiosity 
that hankers after disclosures of the future. Thus is explained not only the 
fanatical abuse which is employed upon this book, but also the animosity by 
which the scientific investigation of this book is disturbed more than that of 
any other in the Bible, —the O. T. Apoc. perhaps excepted. The most can- 
did and courageous judgment in regard to this has been excellently stated 
by Hengstenb.:! “The position which every one takes, with respect to the con- 
tents of the book, is decisive concerning his blessedness or condemnation.” 2 © 

a. The book’s testimony concerning itself, as to the place and time of com- 
position, is (a) direct; i.e., there are in the Apoc. express declarations from 
which the time (and place) of composition can be learned, without requir- 
ing, as in the indirect testimonies, the interposition of a combination of rela- : 
tions occurring in other places. 

As John’s Apocalytic prophecy looks towards its proper goal, viz., the 
Lord’s return, in such a way that there is presented within the historical 
horizon of the prophet, not only unbelieving Judaism, but also antichristian 
heathenism, and that, too, under the concrete form of Rome ruling the world; 8 
so in these two respects the Apoc. contains direct chronological testimonies, 
viz.,.ch. xi. 1-14, and chs. xiii. and xvii. If the two testimonies harmonize 
chronologically, this is the more important as the contents of the former 
are in other respects dissimilar from those of the latter. 

Whether xi. 1-144 be a prophecy concerning the impending destruction 
It is 
sufficient for chronological interest, that that prophecy depends upon the pre- 


of Jerusalem as such, or not, may here be left entirely undecided. 


supposition that the destruction of the Holy City had not yet occurred. This is 
derived with the greatest evidence from the text, since it is said, ver. 2, that 
the Holy City, i.e., Jerusalem,® is to be trodden down by the Gentiles. This 
testimony of the Apoc., which is completely indubitable to an unprejudiced 


1 ji. 372. 


2 xxii. 18, 19. 

8 Cf,-§ 2, 3. 
. * Why E. Bohmer (Ueber Verfasser und 
. Abfassungszeit der johannischen Apok., etc., 
Halle, 1855, p. 23) has not taken into considera- 


-tion xi. 1 sqq., is inconceivable. Besides, he 


assigns the Apoc. to the time of the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. 

5 Cf., besides, v. 8. 

δ. ..9 Τ- ἔθνεσιν. Kal THY πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν 
πατήσουσι. ΟἿ, Luke xxi. 28: καὶ ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ. 


ἔσται πατουμένη ὑπό ἐθνῶν. 


INTRODUCTION. 41 


mind, can still be misunderstood only with great αἰ ΠΟ] γ,: by accompany- 
ing its acceptance with the avowal that so eminent an interpreter as Irenaeus 
made an erroneous statement concerning the time of its composition. 

The chronological results of xi. 1 sqq. are confirmed by what is said in 
chs. xiii. and xvii. Even here a completely certain explanation of all indi- 
vidual difficulties is not advanced, but only the recognition of certain funda- 
mental lines of exposition: viz., that the beast rising from the sea with his 
ten horns, seven heads, and ten crowns (ch. xili.), essentially signifies noth- 
ing else than the beast with seven heads and ten horns carrying the great 
harlot; in other words, that as certainly as the name of the beast (Aareivoc), 
indicated in xiii. 8, can apply only to the Roman secular empire, so also the 
mysterious name Babylon, xvii. 5, refers to Rome; and also that not only 
does xvii. 9 refer to the seven hills of the seven-hilled city, but also that the 
seven kings mentioned in xvii. 10, who are represented by the seven horns, 
are to be understood not of dynasties or governments, but of personal sover- 
eigns, and therefore of the Roman emperors. If that be correct, then xvii. 
18 contradicts the statement of Irenaeus, that the Apoc. was beheld under 
Domitian; for if five of the heads, i.e., emperors, have fallen, then the one 
at that time present, the sixth, can in no case be later than Vespasian. We 
reach him by beginning with Augustus, and passing over the three kings 
between Nero and Vespasian (Galba, Otho, Vitellius), regarding their short 
reign as an interregnum.” After this, the result of the combination of xvii. 
10 with xi. 1-14 would be, that the Apoc. was written in that part of the 
reign of Vespasian which was prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, i.e., 
between the close of December, 69, and the spring of 70. And if the Lord’s 
Day of i. 10 were to be regarded not as a Sunday, but as that particular 
day after which Sundays were designated as Lord’s Days, then it would 
follow ὃ that John beheld the revelation on Easter of the year 70. 

Ewald and others regard the sixth emperor present to John, not as Ves- 
pasian, — since they do not reckon him as Nero’s immediate successor, — but 
as Galba. In a chronological respect, the distinction is insignificant, as 
Galba reigned only from June, 68, to January, 69. More important is the 
diversity of exposition in chs. xiii. and xvii., upon which each of these chro- 
nological results respectively rests. According to our view, the account in 


-1 Hofmann, a. a. O. I., p. 801. Hengstenb., length received and established the imperial 
etc. power which by the rebellion and slaughter of 
2 Cf. Suetonius, Vespas. 1: REBELLIONE the three princes had been long uncertain and 
trium principum et caede INCERTUM diu et as it were in transition.” 
quasi VAGUM IMPERIUM suscepit firmavitque ὃ Bohmer, p. 29. 
tandem gens Flavia. ‘‘ The Flavian gens at 


48 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


ch. xiii. presupposes that not only Galba, but also Otho and Vitellius, the 
latter of whom Ewald in no way considers, belong to the past; while the 
comparison with ch. xvii. yields the result that at that time Vespasian had 
the throne. For when John (xiii. 1 sqq.) ascribes to the beast seven heads, 
—of which one is wounded unto death, and yet healed, —but at the same 
time ten horns and ten crowns, he means on the one hand ten kings,} 1.6., 
persons, whose actual reign is symbolized by ten horns and crowns (viz., 1, 
Augustus; 2, Tiberius; 3, Caligula; 4, Claudius; 5, Nero; 6, Galba; 7, Otho; 
8, Vitellius; 9, Vespasian ; 10, Titus): but, on the other hand, the three usurp- 
ers between Nero and Vespasian could not have the same position with 
the other emperors as “heads” of the beast; on the other hand, “ the rebel- 
lion of the three princes” which rendered ‘‘ the imperial power uncertain 
and as though in transition,” gave the mortal wound to the head of the 
beast, which was healed only when Vespasian seized the power. He, there- 
fore, appears as the sizth head of the beast; he is the first of the Flavian 
family, which has again established the tottering government. But whether 
the sixth or the seventh head was then ruling, is learned not from ch. xiil., 
but from ch. xvii. Yet, notwithstanding the substantially identical signifi- 
cance in the whole, the presentation of details is not throughout the same. 
In ch. xiii., a beast appears as the symbol of the antichristian Roman Em- 
pire; while ch. xvii., under the figure of the harlot drunk with the blood of 
saints, sitting upon that beast, describes the world’s metropolis, Rome, as 
the concrete embodiment of the Roman dominion over the world.? But 
even the beast itself is depicted and understood in a somewhat different 
way. The seven heads, i.e., emperors, are alike; but from the seven crowns 
there is no speech, but only from the ten horns, which, however, do not 
stand, as in ch. xiii., in a parallel with the seven heads, but describe ὃ still 
future kings. These ten horns have therefore nothing whatever to do 
with the reckoning and interpretation of the seven heads, as is established 
from ch. xiii. and xvii. 10. The seven heads are, as in ch. xiii., the 
Emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero—these five are 
fallen (xvii. 10); the sixth, which was then the present one; and Titus, the 
other which is still to come, and when come to remain only a short time. 
The eighth, symbolized by no special head on the beast, since he himself will 
be regarded the personification of the whole beast (xvii. 11), is, then, Domi- 
tian, the second son of Vespasian, the brother of Titus, of whom it is there- 
fore said, ἐκ τῶν ἐπτά ἐστιν (“He is of the seven”).4 This eighth emperor 


John considers not only as the individual personification of the Roman 


1 Cf. xvii. 10. 8 xvii. 12. 


2 Cf. xvii. 18, ἡ πόλις ; ν. 9, ὄρη ἑπτά. 4 Cf. Exposition. 


INTRODUCTION. 49 


antichrist, but also as the last possessor of the Roman dominion over the 
world ; as in his person this finds its complete fulfilment, with him it also 
perishes.? _ 

In respect to the chronological interest, there is still only one point of the 
account in xvii. 8 sqq., to be kept in view, which serves to more accurately 
determine the declaration in xvii. 10. The beast, says John,? was, and is not, 
and shall ascend out of theabyss. Here not only the μέλλει ἀναβαίνειν ἐκ τ. 
' αβύσσου (v. 8), but also the relation of the entire conception to that of the 
healed mortal wound,’ can remain undiscussed. It results only in this: viz., 
the beast is not, and yet is the sixth of his heads. This can have the mean- 
ing only that the then present emperor (Vespasian), symbolized by the sixth 
head, has the dominion in such way that, while in one respect he must be 
regarded a real head of the beast, yet in another respect it may be said 
that the dominion over the world, signified by the beast, is not there. This 
prophetic enigma appears therefore to point to the time when Vespasian was 
proclaimed emperor by his Oriental legions, while Vitellius still stood at 
the head of his Germanic army. As Vespasian had, in fact, already won the 
empire, — for there was no doubt as to what would be the result of the war 
with Vitellius, — Vespasian was already the head of the beast; and yet his 
imperial power was not unquestioned and undivided, and the Roman do- 
minion over the world lay neither in his hand nor in that of Vitellius. In so 
far, says John, the beast is not. This condition of things, which created 
violent commotion in Egypt, Syria (Palestine), and Asia,* where the 
legions swore allegiance to Vespasian, occurred in the beginning of the year 
70. At this time, therefore, upon the basis of xvil. 8 sqq., we must put the 
_ composition of the Apoc.; and that, too, with the greater certainty, as we 
have already been taught from ch. xi. 1 sqq., that it at all events was 
completed before the destruction of Jerusalem.® 

(3) The indirect self-witness of the Apoc. concerning the time of its 
origin, which is in its very nature more indefinite and doubtful,® lies in the 
relation of Christians to Jews and heathen, and in the intimations given of 
the inner circumstances of congregations. What appears in both respects, in 
the Apoc., appears on the one hand not so much in fixed historical form, as 
rather in the garb of a prophetic description; but, on the other hand, we are 
by no means so fully instructed concerning the historical relations mentioned 


1 xvii. 8, 11 sqq. 2 xvii. 8, 11. horn, to fix the composition of the Apocalypse 
8 xiii. 3, 4. between the years 71 and 78. Cf., on the con- 
4 Cf. Tacitus, Histories, ii. 78 sqq.; Sueto- trary, already Heinrichs. 

nius, Vespasian, 5. 6 Cf. Liicke, p. 4383 sqq., 820 sqq., with 


5 It is improper, therefore, as, e.g., in Eich- Hengstenb., i. p. 9 sqq. 


50 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


in the Apoc., by accounts given elsewhere, as with confidence to recognize 
the temporal relations reflected in particular allusions of the book. 

How great was the hostility of the Jews to the Christians, cannot be 
clearly learned from ii. 9 sq., iii. 9.1 Defamations on their part occur dur- 
ing the entire apostolic and post-apostolic periods. We also know already, 
from the Book of Acts, that in the beginning the Jews instigated the civil 
authorities against the Christians. At the martyrdom of Polycarp, Jews and 
heathen made common cause.2. Under the Roman government, the Jews 
did not dare with their own hands to do them violence. This was true in 
the time of Paul, as well as in that of Justin. Yet it happened, especially 
at the time of the revolt against the Roman government, that the Jews also 
showed their hatred to the Christians by deeds of violence. May it not, 
then, be supposed that the hostility of the Jews, indicated in the Apoc.,° was 
not content with mere “ blaspheming,” but brought upon Christians other 
sufferings also?® And is it not consistent with this, that by the war with 
the Romans the fanaticism of the Jews was stirred up? Perhaps in connec- 
tion with what is said in xi. 3 sqq., the remembrance of what James the 
Lord’s brother suffered at Jerusalem may be recalled.?’ The conjecture 
appears still nearer, that the promise to the church at Philadelphia ὃ is not 
without reference to the impending destruction of Jerusalem. If, now, we 
put together the facts that it is David’s key which the Lord has, and with 
which he has opened to the Church a door which no man can shut; that 
the Jews who hitherto have blasphemed are to acknowledge the Redeemer, 
and turn to the Church for aid; that the speedy return of the Lord® will 
bring the new Jerusalem, —all this is indicated, if we find herein traces in 
general of definite historical relations, not to the time of Domitian, whose 
heavy hand oppressed the Jews no less than the Christians, but to that of the 


destruction of Jerusalem. By that impending judgment, the Lord would 


1 Of. also xi. 3 sqq. 

2 Mart. Poly., c. 10 sqq. 

8 Cf. Justin, Dial. c. Tryph., 6. 16: καταρώ- 
μενοι ἐν Tals συναγωγαῖς ὑμῶν TOUS πιστεύοντας 
ἐπὶ τὸν Χριστόν. Οὐ γὰρ ἐξουσίαν ἔχετε αὐτόχει- 
ρες γενέσθαι ἡμῶν διὰ τοὺς νῦν ἐπικρατοῦντας" 
ὁσάκις δὲ ἂν ἐδυνήθητε, καὶ τοῦτο ἐπράξατε 
(** Cursing in your synagogues those who be- 
lieved in Christ. For you do not have the 
power to lay hands upon us, on account of 
those who now have the mastery. But as 
often as you could, you did so”’). 

4 Justin, Apol., i. 31: ᾿Αναιροῦντες καὶ κο- 


λάζοντες ἡμᾶς ὁπόταν δύνωνται ---καὶ yap ἐν 


τῷ νῦν γεγενημένῳ ἰουδαϊκῷ πολέμῳ Βαρχωχέβας 
— Χριστιανοὺς μόνους εἰς τιμωρίας δεινάς, εἰ μὴ 
ἀρνοῖντο ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ βλασφημοῖεν, 
ἐκέλευεν ἀπάγεσθαι (‘* They slay and punish 
us whenever they are able. For, in the Jewish 
war which lately raged, Barchochebas gave 
orders that Christians alone should be led to 
cruel punishments, unless they would deny 
Jesus Christ, and utter blasphemy ’’). 

5 ii. 9 8q., iii. 9. 

6 θλῖψις, πάσχειν, li. 9 Βα. 

7In the year 69. Cf. Gieseler, Airchen- 
geschichte, I. i. p. 128. 


8. 211. 9. 9.11]. 11. 


INTRODUCTION. 51 


show the blaspheming Jews that in his death he had loved the Church,! but 
that upon that unbelieving people his blood would justly be avenged. It 
was just this judgment upon Jerusalem which would open their eyes; one 
indeed of fearful violence, but yet like a door opened by the key of David, 
whereby believers in Philadelphia could introduce those Jews who would 
hear and see, into fellowship with the eternal King upon the throne of David, 
and could establish them in the hope of the new Jerusalem. 

More fruitful and definite are the allusions of the Apoc. to the Roman 
Empire in its relation to the Christians; but, even in this respect, the pro- 
phetic-poetical coloring, wherein necessarily the historical facts are pre- 
sented, must be taken into consideration. It is by neglecting this, that 
Hengstenb., with seeming confidence, reaches the solution that the Apoc. 
This 
emperor was the first, he says, to have himself deified: only, therefore, to 
But in ch. 
Xlll., it is no particular sovereign (no particular head), but the entire beast, 


could have been written at no other time than that of Domitian. 
him is what is said in xiii. 4, 8, 12, and xviii. 18, applicable. 


which, in its godless nature, is described. To the Roman imperial power, 
as such, is attributed the self-deifying pride, confiding in its own seemingly 
unlimited authority. If, in his prophetic description,? John had thought of 
special objects, they could be only such as, by recurring in a similar way in 
different possessors of the Roman power, characterize its entire antichristian 
nature. There belong the apotheosis, conferred already upon Julius Cesar ; 8 
the erection of altars which already pleased Augustus;4 the madness of 
Caligula, who put the head of his own statue upon one of the Olympian 
Jupiter, and had himself saluted as Jupiter Latiaris, erecting a temple to 
himself, with special priests and sacrifices,® etc. But what is said in ch. 
xiii., concerning the Roman imperial power as such, is applied in xviii. 18 
to the city as the concrete embodiment of the Roman dominion over the 
world. “Every passage points to Domitian”? as little as to any other 
emperor; but John has in view the blasphemous pride, as, e.g., it displays 


itself in the altars consecrated in the city of Rome. Besides, what the 


1 iii. 9. 

2 Cf. Isa. xxxvi. 18 sqq. 

8 Suetonius, Caes., 88. Cf. on Claudius Eu- 
tropius, Hist., vii. 13. 

4 Suetonius, Octav., 52: Templa in nulla 
tamen provincia nisi communi swo Romaeque 
nomine recepit. ‘ He allowed temples, never- 
theless, in no province unless in the common 
name of himself and Rome.” Herod the Great 


already had erected, in a city so well known as 


Caesarea, a temple in honor of the Emperor 
Augustus, and in it his statue in the form of 
the Olympian Zeus, besides the image of Hera 
brought from Argos, representing Rome. Jo- 
sephus, B. Jud., i. 21,7. Cf. Wieseler, Bei- 
trdge, Gotha, 1869. See especially the chapter 
Kaisercultus in L. Preller’s Romische Mythol- 
ogie. 
5 Suetonius, Caligula, 21 


6 Cf. ch. xvii. 5 Hengstenb. 


52 THE REVELATION. OF ST. JOHN. 


Apoc. says concerning the violence inflicted upon Christians on the part 
of the Roman world-power, John thinks also pertains only to the time of 
Domitian. That the book was written in the midst of the oppression of the 
Neronian persecution,! dare not be inferred, since that persecution was con- 
fined to the city of Rome, and to the infliction of capital punishment; while 
the Apoc. presupposes that the persecution was co-extensive with Christian- 
ity,2 and was accompanied not only by executions, but by banishment to 
desert islands,? and imprisonment.* But since, where the antichristian 
world-power is beheld in the more definite form of the harlot who symbol- 
izes the city,> it appears drunk with the blood of the martyrs; just in the 
degree in which the description of the world-power, ch. xvii. sqq., is more 
concrete than in ch. xiii., the leading feature in the picture of the hatred of 
antichrist has a coloring that is more historical, although the entire descrip- 
tion always remains of so very a prophetical-poetic character, that the city, 
as the proper centre of the entire empire, appears stained with the blood of 
the martyrs shed not only in the empire, but in the whole world.® But 
that already, in the times before Domitian, Christians were cast into prison,’ 
and had otherwise in their daily life to bear the scorn and hatred of the 
heathen,® is self-evident, especially after Nero himself in the capital had 
given the example by surrendering the Christians to the already long-exist- 
ing hatred of the heathen. But, even without definite testimonies, it must 
be accepted, that, especially in the East, during the war against the rebel- 
lious Jews, the Christians, as the Romans took no pains to distinguish them 
from Jews, had to endure all kinds of oppression and persecution. 

The allusions of the Apoc., therefore, refer no more to the times of 
Domitian than to those of Vespasian. But if we combine the passages 
already discussed, with the direct testimony derived from xvii. 10 sq., and 
with what is said in vi. 10 sq., there will be a new confirmation of the view 
that the Apoc. was written under Vespasian. The question of the souls of 
the martyrs, ἕως πότε, «7.1.9 presupposes that since their martyrdom some 
time already had transpired. Had the Apoc. been seen in the beginning of 
the year 70, this would have harmonized with its application to those 
martyrs: but the reference is especially to be ascribed to those executed by 
Nero at Rome; for, in July of the year 64, that persecution broke out in 
which Peter perished, after, as is highly probable, Paul had been slain 


1 De Wette, Liicke, Ewald, Bleek. 5 Ch. xvii. sqq- 
2 Which Hengstenb. (i. p. 24) finds desig- 6 xviii. 24. 

nated also in xiii. 7: πᾶσαν φυλήν — ἔθνος. 72 Cor. x., xiii. 10. 
3 1.9. 8 xiii. 16. 


4 xiii. 10. 9 vi. 10. 


INTRODUCTION. 53 


at Rome a few months previously.1_ Of course, in itself, the question ἕως 
πότε, .T:A., Would be with complete propriety applicable to the times of 
Domitian; but this chronological reference is rendered impossible by the 
answer.2. For, in a short time,®? the longing of the martyrs for revenge 
will be satisfied; only a certain number of believers must first suffer the 
martyrdom appointed them also. Then the Lord comes, yea, he comes 
quickly,‘ to destroy drunken Rome. This is to be determined more accu- 
rately according to xvii. 10 sq. Domitian, the eighth, i-e., the last sover- 
eign of the antichristian Roman Empire, is the one who, as the personifica- 
tion of the antichristian beast, will make the number of the martyrs 
complete, whereupon then the entire Roman sovereignty over the world 
will fall in ruins. 

Finally, the inner circumstances of the Asiatic churches come into con- 
sideration, and especially the moral faults and false doctrines condemned in 
the seven epistles. If the Apocalyptic picture of any church be compared 
with such, e.g., as is presented in the Pauline Epistles to the Ephesians and 
Colossians, a contrast becomes manifest, which must then be chronologi- 
cally estimated. Hengstenb. thinks that the space between the work of the 
Apostle Paul in the Asiatic churches, and the time of composition assigned 
by Liicke, to be too brief to account for such facts as that the first love should 
already have so greatly cooled, such peculiar errors have arisen, and, in gen- 
eral, the entire condition of the churches become so unsatisfactory as repre- 
sented in the Apoc., and that the time of Domitian is the very earliest 
wherein this is conceivable. But, on the one hand, the departure of the 
Apostle Paul had withdrawn a firm support from the young congregations, 
—and even the Epistles to the Colossians and Galatians show how soon 
strong errors entered when the apostle’s absence gave them room, — and, on 
the other hand, it is highly improbable that the condition of those seven 
churches would not have been better than the Apoc. indicates, if it had 
been actually written only towards the end of Domitian’s reign, and there- 
fore after the Apostle John had personally labored for almost a generation 
in those congregations as his own peculiar district.6 But if we consider 
that between the close of Paul’s activity in Asia,’ and the beginning of the 
reign of Vespasian, —i.e., the time of the composition of the Apoc., — 
over twelve years intervene; and that since the composition of the Epistle 


1 Cf. Wieseler’s Chronologie des apost. 5 Chs. ii. and iii. 

Zeitalters, GOtt. 1848, p. 541 sqq. 6 Hengstenb. i. 54. 
Vi. 11. . 7 He left Asia after a stay of almost three 
8 χρόνον μικρόν. years, about Pentecost of the year 57. Wiese- 


# ἐν τάχει, ταχύ, ὃ καιρὸς ἐγγύς. ler, a. a. Ὁ. S., 118. 


54 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


to the Ephesians,! perhaps eight years have passed; and, further, that the 
beginning of the more speculative and more practical errors which are 
reproved in the Apocalyptic epistles? had manifested themselves already in 
the times of Paul, — the condition of the Asiatic churches, presupposed by 
the Apoc., will not appear inconceivable at the time at which, for other 
reasons, we must fix the composition of the book. 

Concerning the place where the Apoc. occurred, the author himself gives 
a definite testimony, inasmuch as he expressly states that on the Island of 
Patmos he received the divine revelation written in the book; for,? that the 
entire abode of the prophet on that island is only imaginary,‘ is an asser- 
tion without any foundation. But it is a further question, whether John 
also composed his book on that island. To Bengel, Hengstenb., etc., this is 
a matter of course, since they assume that the literary composition of the 
Apoc. was completed on the very same day on which the prophetic vision 
oecurred. But 1ὖ is not only inconceivable, according to the nature of the 
case, that the ecstatic condition of the seer soon yields to the more tranquil 
self-consciousness required for literary composition, and then again soon 
recurs, and thus the vision interrupted by the act of writing every time 
returns to its original connection; but also the preterite ἐγενόμην ὁ expressly 
contradicts the view that the Apoc. was committed to writing at Patmos. 
Besides, the book nowhere else contains any direct expression concerning 
the place of its composition. But if John’ went to Patmos in order, in the 
quiet of that island, to receive the divine revelation to his spirit, and if, 
further, the Apocalyptic writing was intended for the seven churches of Asia 
Minor, the opinion is justified that John was at home among that circle 
of congregations, and that after his return from Patmos he wrote consecu- 
tively the revelation received for the seven churches. Perhaps Ephesus 
was the dwelling-place of John, and therefore the place of composition ; 
for the conjecture readily arises, that the prophet passed over to Patmos 
from one of the cities ὃ bordering closely upon the coast. But Ephesus is 
the nearest, and first mentioned.® 


SEC. IV.—THE AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 


b. Concerning its author, also, the book itself gives testimony, both 
directly and indirectly. The former consists of such expressions as of 


1 In the year 61 or 62. Cf. Weiseler, p. 455. 5 Bleek, Liicke, ete. 

2 ii. 14, 20, 24. 61,9, 10. 

31.9. 71.9 sq. 

4 Hich., Finl.,a.a.O.8., 366 sqq.; Volkmar, 8 Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos. 


p. 63. 9 i, il, ii. 1. 


INTRODUCTION. 55 


themselves make known the author: the latter results from the comparison 
of the Apoc. with the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John. 

(a) The direct se/f-witness of the Apoc. to its author. 

As the author calls himself John,}! first of all the question arises, whether 
or not he wished to be regarded as the apostle of that name. Even were 
this the case, criticism would have to ask further, whether the claim of 
the writer of the Apoc., to be regarded as the Apostle John, be actually 
justified or not. A result prejudicial to the canonical authority of the book 
would follow only in case criticism could with confidence decide that the 
author had falsely assumed the name of the Apostle John; for, while pseu- 
donymity, in a purely literary work, may in a moral respect be a matter of 
indifference, yet where not only the treatment is directed to the edification 
of Christian churches, but also where the attaching of a name thereto must 
serve to guarantee the truly prophetic authority of a writer, such absence of 
a delicate sense of regard for truth would be presupposed as would dis- 
qualify a Christian writer for full canonical credit. For, to a writer of such 
kind, the possible literary custom of the time, according to which pseudo- 
nymity is not regarded as properly false, would afford no adequate excuse; 
since in his moral character he must stand far above his times, if to these 
times, and those which are to follow, he is to give an actual norm, dependent 
upon divine inspiration. But, without any difficulty with respect to the 
canonical authority of the Apoc., it is the decision of criticism that the 
author is to be regarded not the Apostle John, for the very reason that he 
does not claim to be such. 

The mere mention of his own name, on the part of the author, does not 
serve so much to make us acquainted with the person as, rather, to present 
the critical question, according to whose different answers the critics fall 
into two chief classes, as the author of the Apoc. is or is not regarded the 
Apostle John. The former class falls, again, into two very dissimilar groups. 
The one group consists of critics who ascribe to the Apostle John not only 
the Apoc., but also the Gospel and the three Epistles. To this first group 
belong all the Catholic expositors and critics;* the old Protestants; and — 
after the Apostolic-Johannean authenticity of the Apoc. was attacked in 
England by an anonymous edition of the N. T.,8 and by a likewise anony- 
mously published “ Discourse, Historical and Critical, on the Revelation 


Sit, 4, Of 9 Ὁ. ΣῈ Evangeliums nach Joh., Schaffh. 1854, Ῥ. 
2 Cf. Hug, Zinl., ii. § 176. C. Stern, Kom- 189 sqq., 222 sqq. 
mentar tiber die Offenbar. des Apostels Joh., 3 The New Testament in Greek and English, 


Schaffh. 1854. G.K. Mayer, Die Aechtheit des etc., London, 1729. 


56 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


ascribed to St. John” (Lond., 1730), by F. Abauzit,1 and in Germany by 
the school of Semler ?— men like Leonh. Twells,? J. F. Reuss,* F. A. Knit- 
tel,> Bengel, J. B. Liiderwald,® G. C. Storr,’ Hartwig, Herder, Eichhorn, 
J. F. Kleuker,’ Haenlein,? E. W. Kolthoff,!° E. Dannemann; 11 and recently 
Hengstenberg, Ebrard, A. Niermeyer, Elliot,4® Auberlen, E. Bohmer, Geb- 
hardt, Kliefoth, ete. 
of the school of Baur,!+ which ascribes the composition of the Apocalypse 
to the Apostle John, while it denies his authorship of the Gospel and the 
three Epistles.§ 

The critics of the second class, also, who deny the composition of the 


On the other hand, the second group is composed 


Apoc. by the Apostle John, fall into different groups, as some who occupy 
the older rationalistic standpoint regard 16 the Apoc. as a supposititious writ- 
ing; 1!” while the later, more scientific criticism, which controverts the compo- 


1 Concerning the remarkable history of this 
work written originally in French (Abauzit, 
Cuvres diverses, t. i., London, 1770), cf. 
Liicke, p. 496 sq. 

2 Oeder, Freie Unters. tiber die sogennante 
Of. Joh. mit Anmerk, von Semler, Halle, 1769. 
Semler, Abhandl. von freier Unters. des 
Kanon, nebst Antwort auf die Tiibing. Ver- 
theidigung der Apok., Halle, 1771. Semler, 
Neue Unters. tiber Apok., Halle, 1776. 

3 A critical examination of the late New 
Text and Version of the N. T. in Greek and 
English, London, 1782. Cf. Wolf, Curae 
Philolog. et Crit. ... in Apoc., Hamb. 1735, 
Ρ. 387 sqq. 

4 Dissert. theol. de auctore Apocal., Tiib. 
1767. Cf. his Vertheidigung der Off. Joh. 
gegen — Semler, Frankf. 1772. 

5 Beitrdge zur Kritik tiber Joh. Offenba- 
rung., Braunschweig and Hildesh. 1773. 

6 Bemiihungen zur griindlichen Beurthei- 
lung und Erkenntniss der Offend. Joh., 
Helmst. 1777-78. 

7 Neue Apologie der Offenb. Joh., ΤΡ. 1783. 
Zweck der evangel. Gesch. u. der Briefe Joh., 
Tiib. 1786, p. 70 sq. 

8 Uber den Ursprung und Zweck der Of. 
Joh., Hamburg, 1800. 

9 Handbuch der Einleit. in die Schriften des 
NX. T., vol. i., ἘΠῚ. 1801, p. 220 sqq. 

10 Apocalypsis Joanni Ap. vindicata, Hafn. 
1834. 


11 Wer ist der Verf. der Off. Joh., Hannoy. 
1841. 

12 Verhandeling over de Echtheid der jo- 
hanneischen Schriften, Gyravenhage, 1852. 
Cf. Lechler, Stud. u. Krit., 1856, p. 867 sqq. 

18 Horae Apocalypticae, or a Commentary 
on the Apocal., critical and historical, iv. ed., 
London, 1851. 

14 Cf. Baur, Krit. Untersuchungen tiber die 
Das 
Christenthum und die christl. Kirche der dret 
ersten Jahrhunderte, Tiib. 1853. 


15 Volkmar deviates so far from these as to 


kanonischen Evangelien, Tiib. 1847. 


assert that the Apoc. was composed not by the 
Apostle John himself, but only in his spirit by 
an anti-Paulist. Cf., on the other hand, Hil- 
genf., Der Kanon und der Kritik des N. T., 
Halle, 1863, p. 236. Hinl., p. 681. 

16 Abauzit, Oeder, Semler, etc , M. Merkel, 
Historisch-krit. Aufkldrung tiber die Streitig- 
keiten der Aloger — als Beitrag zum zuerldassi- 
gen Beweise, dass die Apok. ein undcht Buch 
sei, Frank. and Leipz. 1782. 
Beweis, dass die Apok. ein untergeschobenes 
Buch sei, Frank. and Leipz. 1785. H. Cor- 
Krit. Gesch. Ziir. 
1781 sqq., vol. ii. sec. 12 sqq. Versuch einer 


Umstdndlicher 


rodi, des Chiliasmus, 
Beleuchtung der Gesch. des 714. u. chrisil. 
Bibelkanons, Halle, 1792, vol. ii. p. 301 sqq., 
etc. 

17 Oeder (cf. also Corrodi, ii. 332) again ad- 
vanced the idea already expressed in ancient 


INTRODUCTION. τ 


sition of the Apoc. by the Apostle John (i.e., by the author of the Gospel 
and Epistles), more or less definitely asserts that the writer of the Apoce. 
did not wish to be regarded the Apostle John, and, therefore, that the book 
is not supposititious, although it cannot be ascertained with certainty whether 
the writer be possibly the presbyter John,! or another of the same name,? — 
perhaps the evangelist John Mark.® 

From the fact that the writer of the Apoc. calls himself John, it does not 
immediately follow that he must be regarded the apostle of that name, but 
only that to the first circle of readers of the book that self-designation of the 
prophet must have been sufficient. Quite a different representation has been 
made, not only to us, but already in ancient times, by the tradition that the 
Apostle John composed the revelation to which that name is attached.* But 
the question is, whether the book itself contains any further intimations 
concerning the composer. There are none such in the expression, τῷ 
δούλῳ αὐτ., i. 1, ascribed improperly to John’s apostolic office; nor in the 
ἐμαρτύρησεν, 1. 2, which no more contains any allusion to a former written 
declaration of John, i.e., to his Gospel, than in the ὅσα εἶδεν there is to be 
found any to the fact® that John was an eye and ear witness;® nor also 
from i. 9 sqq., for the ancient tradition of the banishment of the apostle to 
the Island of Patmos arises from a misunderstanding of this passage, which 
does not speak in any way concerning a banishment.’ The immediate self- 
witness of the Apoc. concerning the John whom it mentions as its author is 
of negative character, as it only makes known that the writer of the Apoc. is 
not the Apostle John. [See Note I., p 87.] No trace of apostolic authority 
shows itself in the relation of the writer of the Apoc. to the churches to and 
for whom he writes. John writes only as a brother and companion,’ without 
asserting that paternal attitude to his little children which the Apostle John 
takes in his first Epistle, without detracting from his fraternal fellowship, 
and of which some indications or other must have been found in the Apoc. 
if this had actually been written by the Apostle John, and at the end of his 
life, after many years’ service in those churches. The author of the Apoc. 
writes not from apostolic sovereignty, but from an especial revelation; even 
the seven epistles were expressly dictated to him by the Lord. The apostle 


times (cf. § 5), that the Apoc. derived its ori- en, Ziir. 1843. Cf., on the other side, Liicke, 


gin from Cerinthus. p- 778 sqq. 
1 Bleek, Ewald, ii. 66. 4 See above, sec. 5. 
2 Heinrichs, Ewald, De Wette, Liicke; Ne- 5 Kliefoth. 
ander, ‘‘ History of the Planting and Train- 6 Acts xxi. sqq. 
ing,” etc., Hamburg, 1841, vol. ii. p. 540 sq. 7 See Exposition, and cf. sec. 5. 


8 Hitzig, Uber Johannes Markus u. 8. Schrift- 8 Rev. i. 9. 


58 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


hardly needed the complete and emphatic attestation to which the prophet 
refers in his special appeal.+ Possibly it is still more important that? no- 
where, neither in the introduction ὅ nor at the close, is there the least trace 
of the confidential relation between the Lord and the Apostle John. 

A peculiar testimony to the fact that the author is not one of the apostles, 
he himself gives in the way in which he portrays their prominent position in 
the Church. In the twelve foundations which support the walls of the New 
Jerusalem, are the names of the twelve apostles ; * in the second half of the 
twenty-four elders who stand before the throne of God, are probably to be 
reckoned the twelve apostles, regarded as the patriarchs of the N.T.5 The 
point here ® is not so much that such a representation would be a violation 
of modesty if the author of the Apoc. were himself one of the twelve 
apostles,’ as, on the other hand, it has to do with the complete objectivity 
with which the twelve apostles are presented to the author of the Apoc. 
This has been felt even by Hengstenb., only with the result that he has not 
inferred that the author of the Apoc. must stand outside of that apostolic 
twelve, but simply that the Apoc. could have been composed “only at the 
end of the apostolic period.” Yet this does not remove the difficulty of the 
writer of the Apoc. seeing himself among the elders in heaven, and his own 
name in the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem. Even the appeal 
to Eph. ii. 20 does not serve to render what is said in Rev. xxi. 14 incon- 
ceivable in the mouth of an apostle. While we concede that in the former 
passage the gen. τῶν ἀποστόλων is an appositive gen. to the τῷ θεμελίῳ, and 
therefore, that, according to a different mode of conception from 1 Cor. iii. ΠῚ; 
the apostles and prophets are themselves considered the foundation of which 
Christ is the corner-stone ; ὃ yet we do not conclude ® that only a pupil of the 
apostles could have written thus concerning the apostles, as it is written in 
Eph. ii. 20, but we believe that only Paul, not one of the twelve, could have 
thus written. Just, therefore, as Paul (Eph. 11. 20) distinguishes himself 
from the apostles,!° John 1: evidently presupposes that he himself does not 
belong to the twelve. [See Note II., p. 87.] 

(8) The indirect self-witness of the Apoc. to its author lies in the relation 
occupied by the Apoc. to the writings of the Apostle John. In the entire 
mode of conception and statement, in type of doctrine, and in many linguis- 


1 1,9 sq. 6 Cf. also xviii. 20. 

2 Cf. Ewald, Jahrbiicher der bibl. Wis- 7 Ewald. Cf., on the contrary, Hengstenb. 
sensch. ν. 1853, p. 179 sqq. 8 Cf., on the contrary, Meyer. 

3 Cf. especially i. 9-20. 9 De Wette. 

4 xxi. 14. 10 Cf., especially, also 1 Cor. xv. 5, 7, 11. 


δ iv. 4, 10. 11 Rev. iv. 4, xxi. 14. 


INTRODUCTION. 59 


tic peculiarities, the author of the Apoc. is clearly to be distinguished from 
the author of the Gospel and the Epistles of John; i.e., from the apostle. 

It must be acknowledged at the very beginning, that, from the indirect 
self-witness of the Apoc. on all the sides above mentioned, a completely 
rigid proof cannot be deduced. For as the Apoc. belongs to an entirely 
different class of writings from the Gospel and the Epistles of John, as even 
the Apoc. epistles could not have the same literary character as the three 
’ epistles of the apostle, it depends ultimately upon the tact of the critic cul- 
tivated in the Holy Scriptures, as to whether he will decide that the differ- 
ences between the Apoc. and the writings of the Apostle John, denied by no 
thoughtful person, have their ultimate foundation in the difference of sub- 
jects, or the personal diversity of authors. And this decision is in no way 
conditioned alone by critical observations as such, but rests fundamentally 
upon certain theological principles, which in the critical function may be 
said to be transparent. For, just to the degree in which the visions de- 
scribed in the Revelation are in their genesis to be regarded independent 
of the individuality of the prophet, and the composition of the book to be 
only a relation of images previously objectively formed, and not as a con- 
ception and composition conditioned by the subjectivity of the prophet,’ 
must the critical significance of the differences indicated vanish. From this 
standpoint, therefore, it may be asserted that it is inconceivable that the com- 
position of the Apoc. and the other Johannean writings should have been con- 
temporaneous ; 2 yea, the substantial ignoring of the difference between the 
Apoc. and the Gospel with the Epistles, in connection with which there is 
perhaps an allusion still made to the difference in the character of the sub- 
jects, is from that standpoint much more correct than when it is accounted 
for by the statement, that, between the composition of the Gospel and the 
Apoc., there lies almost the life of a generation, in which time the apostle 
could have developed from the author of the Apoc. to that of the Gospel. 
Even though this development be-not regarded a retrogression, as by Eichhorn 
and other rationalists, who find in the Gospel and the Epistles traces of old 
age, an unfitness of John to be the author of the Apoc. is thus assumed 
which agrees ill with the idea of his apostolic office, and that, too, apart from 
the fact that then the testimony of Irenaeus, according to which the Apoc. 
originates with the Apostle John and towards the end of Domitian’s reign, 
must be abandoned at least as to its latter half. Hengstenb. is therefore, 
from his standpoint, correct throughout, when, holding fast to the testimony 
of Irenaeus even in a chronological respect, he denies that the differences 


1 Cf. sec. 2. 2 As, e.g., the Catholic Mayer. 


60 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


between the Apoc. and the other Johannean writings are such as to justify 
the inference of different authors, and proceeds, on the other hand, to trace 
the peculiarities of the Evangelist also in the writer of the Apocalypse. For 
then the defence rests with all emphasis upon the assumption that John, as 
writer of the Apoc., was “in the Spirit,” which as Evangelist he was not. 
Besides, not only does Hengstenb. see in the declaration, ἑγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι 3 
that which “ convicts of falsehood ” 8 the critics who wish the human genius 
of the writer of the Apoc. to be recognized, in distinction from that of the 
Evangelist ; but he regards it a priori self-evident that so great a prophecy as 
that of the Apoc. “could proceed ” only from the circle of the apostles, yea, 
only from one who among the apostles himself had one of the first places.” 4 
This Apocalyptic prophecy, he says, “is the N. T. prophecy absolutely,” the 
“highest apostolic gift ;” and who “has this in the highest degree need not 
first assert that he is an apostle.”® This is not meant as though the Apoc. 
element belonged only to N. T. prophecy ;® but in the sense in which Auber- 
len also asserts that the summit of all biblical prophecy is the apocalyptic, 
which is presented in the Book of Daniel and the Revelation of John.? But 
just as certainly as the allegorical mode of exposition, by which Hengstenb., 
Auberlen, etc., find in the Apoc. the most special and comprehensive circum- 
stances, is incorrect, is it without proper foundation to accord to the writer 
of the Apoc. the highest honor of prophetic character. It is a kind of exe- 
getical superstition, which prevents the recognition, by means of an impar- 
tial comparison, of the difference between the Apoc. and the apostolic and 
especially the Johannean writings. The essential distinction between the 
entire mode of contemplation, and accordingly of statement also, of the 
writer of the Apoc. and the Apostle John, lies — to speak briefly and directly 


— in this: that in the former a mode of contemplation appealing to the 


1 a.a. O. IL., pp. 425, 431. inspiration. Baur and his school regard the 
2 4.10. ' book as written by the Apostle John, because 
3 ἃ. ἃ. O., Ist ed. p. 170. ° standing on so low a stage of Christian, viz., 
4 i. p. 39. Jewish-Christian, culture, that its production 
5a.a.O. in the apostolic times, whither the strongest 


6 5, o. sec. 2. Liicke, De 


Wette, etc., regard the book as not written by 


ν tradition points, is conceivable. 
7 Jt is characteristic of the three different 
theological fundamental views which obtain the Apostle John, because to them it stands 


among the critics and exegetes of the Apoc. beneath the line of full apostolic dignity, espe- 


(s. 0. sec. 2), how the estimation of the book 
goes hand in hand with the critical judgment 
concerning its apostolic or non-apostolic ori- 
gin. Hengstenb., Auberlen, etc., regard the 
book as written by the Apostle John, because 
it presupposes the greatest fulness of apostolic 


cially as it appears far inferior to the intel- 
lectual elevation of the Johannean writings. 
Cf. De Wette, p. 6: ‘A book, of which we 
must lay aside an entire chapter as an empty 
shell after having pressed out a few drops of 
juice.” Cf. also Luther in his Preface of 1523. 


INTRODUCTION. 61 


senses, and in the latter one to the spirit, is expressed. In the writer of the 
Apoc., the fancy prevails; while in the apostle there is pure thought, in its 
free truth, speculative depth, and gracious life-power. When the writer of 
the Apoc. introduces, prior to the actual advent of the Lord, long series of 
purely earthly and cosmic plagues, or of such as are produced by infernal 
creatures, e.g., scorpion-like grasshoppers and ignivomous horses, such fanci- 
ful mode of contemplation is as foreign to the Evangelist as is the statement 
of the writer of the Apoc. concerning the nearness of the advent, since the 
latter not only regards the then existing Roman Empire as the last form 
of antichristian heathenism, but designates a definite emperor, who by the 
coming of the Lord is to be overthrown and perish. Besides, if such exposi- 
tors are to be justified, who? hold, concerning this, that the writer of the 
Apoce. considers Nero returned from the dead as the eighth and last emperor, 
it is of course comprehensible if the incorrectness of such an exposition 
becomes, to the criticism of the school of Baur, a proof against the origin 
of the Apoc. from the Apostle John; but one who acknowledges the N. T. 
conception of apostolic endowments and authority,?, and finds the Gospel 
with the Epistles of John corresponding thereto, should need no proof that 
the apostle could not have written such a fable of a Nero redivivus. 

If particular examples be required, in order — in contrast with the pneu- 
matical character of the apostle — to estimate what is peculiar to the writer of 
the Apoc., who loves to display every thing in concrete, plastic forms, in fixed 
and defined mass and numbers, we need only recall the seven Spirits of God,® 
the description of the throne of God and the new Jerusalem, the seven 
angels,* the angel of the waters,® etc. ; even general tabular statements of 
numbers and places ® belong here. If the Apoc. be received according to its 
own presentation, it is easily understood how through this peculiar character 
of concrete, external visibility, the poetic beauty of the book is essentially 
conditioned ;7 but at the same time such a species of poetic genius makes 
itself perceptible as is entirely different from the personality of the Apostle 
John, devoted entirely to introspection, and most delicately organized for 
purely spiritual objects and relations. 

The characteristic distinction of the mode of presentation (style) is, as a 
whole, chiefly only the necessary reflection of the underlying mode of con- 
templation; yet certain elements and means of presentation also come into 


1 As even Niermeyer, who yet wishes to 8 i. 4, v. 6. 4 viii. 2. 
assert the composition of the Apoc. by the 5 xvi. 5. 
Apostle John. 6 Cf. on ix. 14. 

2 Cf. my treatise on the Apostle Peter, Hann. 7 In connection with which, there is also the 


1876. artistic blunder of viii. 12. 


62 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


consideration, which have their natural source outside of the personality of 
the author, but just on this account afford a fulcrum for the science of criti- 
cism, by giving the means for judging as to whether the Evangelist John 
has appropriated the items conditioning the mode of presentation in the 
same way as has the writer of the Apocalypse. It is, in general, a charac- 
teristic of the deliberation manifest in the mode of thought of the Apostle 
John, that the statement has something on which it lingers, giving oppor- 
tunity for calm contemplation, and presenting it on its various sides in what 
might be called a circular movement about a subject which is still kept 
close at hand.! United with this is that gracious and gentle love which 
understands, also, how to use mild speech as a means to reach the heart. 
But, with this keynote of the Apostle John’s discourse, the manner of the 
Apocalypse throughout does not harmonize. It is self-evident that the writer 
of the Apocalypse cannot speak in the key of the First Epistle of John; but 
if these two works came from the same composer, it would nevertheless 
result, that just as the distinction in mode of statement in the Epistles, and 
the historical writing of the apostle, in no way conceals the essential simi- 
larity, so, also, the distinction based upon the subject-matter between an 
apocalyptic and an epistolary or historical style, must still manifest a deeply 
underlying identity of authorship. But that is not the case. In the Apoca- 
lypse, another mind thinks, another heart beats, and another mouth speaks. 
This is not said in the least to the discredit of the writer of the Apocalypse; 
for there must be in the kingdom of God many men, even many teachers, 
and yet not every one is to speak like the one who leaned on the Lord’s 
breast. But this voice of the disciple we cannot recognize again in the 
language of the writer of the Apocalypse. Even the Apocalyptic epistles, 
that to Ephesus not excepted, are written in the lapidary style of brief sen- 
tences of the sharpest precision. The introductions τάδε λέγει, «.7.2., the incon- 
trovertible oida, the incisive reproofs, peremptory demands of repentance, and 
direct threats, even the accredited sentences and rich promises, possess, in the 
most pregnant way, the majestic sublimity which is peculiar to the entire 
book ; but throughout, there is so little of the subtile magic of the apostle’s 
mildness, which expresses itself in the gentle harmony of a flexible style, that 
on the other hand, even in the minutest details, the structure of words and 
sentences of the writer of the Apocalypse is such as to render rough and stiff 
his language, which by its disdain of all polish, yea almost of all signs of 
inner consecutiveness of thought;? is just as truly the mode of expression 


1 Cf. my Comm. on 1 Johni., p. xxix. sqq. while chs. i.-iii. are mostly without any ex- 
2 It has been observed, e.g., that, from ch. press connective; and that the Apocalyptic 
iv. on, almost all the sentences begin with καί, style is remote from that circumstantiality 


INTRODUCTION. 63 


corresponding to his peculiar mode of contemplation, as it appears foreign 
[See Note III., p. 87.] 
The mode of contemplation and expression of the Apocalypse has been 


to the Evangelist and epistolary writer John. 


called Old-Testamental and Judaeo-Christian ; yea, there has been found in 
it even a strong leaning towards rabbinical and cabalistic representations : 
while the Apostle John stands at the summit of the New-Testament stand- 
point, and his entire mode of contemplation and speech is Gentile-heathen, 
Hellenistic. In this point, also, the criticism of the Apocalypse displays the 
Herder, e.g., holds to the origin of the book 


from the Apostle John, and his judgment is: “The whole —the design, 


most remarkable irregularities. 


from which I can explain, in its place, every thing, to every manifestation, 
every angel, every sign, almost, I might say, every word —is the vision of 
Christ in the beginning of the book, clothed in the brilliancy of the Sephiroth.” 1 
To Baur? the Judaic narrowness of the book (as he regards, e.g., Rev. xxi. 14, 
as excluding Paul from the number of the apostles, and 11. 2, vi. 9, 14 sq., to 
be an attack upon Paul and Pauline Christianity 3) is an historical trace of 
its origin from the Apostle John. Ewald, who finds in the Apocalypse far 
more that is rabbinical than do Liicke, Bleek, and De Wette,* for this rea- 
son denies that it is the apostle’s ; while Hengstenb., etc.,5 deny every thing 
rabbinical and cabalistic, explaining what is seemingly so immediately 
from the Old Testament, and trying to trace the same in the Evangelist, in 
order to ascribe the Apocalypse to the Apostle John. 

In order, therefore, to establish that the distinction between the Apoca- 
lypse and the other Johannean writings is accountable by the diversity of 
authors, there is no need of proof that the Apocalyptic modes of conception 
and expression are so greatly interpenetrated by rabbinical-cabalistic ele- 
ments, as Herder even expressly asserts, or that they stand upon so low a 
standpoint of Judaic bias as the school of Baur believes that it discerns, — for 
the one is as incorrect as the other, — but it results from two sources that 
are at hand, and scarcely need citation; viz., the relation of the Apocalypse 
to the Old Testament, and, even if all other numerical statements be omitted, 
the application, according to no Old-Testament type, of the art of gematria® 


which the apostle delights to present in the 2 Unters. tiber die kanon. Evang., pp. 


parallelism of positive and negative sentences. 
An appeal to disprove this is improperly made 
to Rey. ii. 9, xx. 6 (Nierm.). Besides, two in- 
dividual examples would not prove linguistic 
character; but compare these sentences with 
the apostle’s mode of expression, e.g., in 
1 John ii. 4 8q., v. 10. 
1.8. ἃ. O., p. 334. 


345 sq., 368. 

3 71ᾶ., 82, Anmerk. 

4 Cf. especially Liicke, p. 688 sqq. 

5 Cf. Hiivernick, De Kabbalistica, quae 
Apocalypsi inesse dicitur, forma et indole, 
Rost. 1834. 

6 [i. e., the numerical indication of names. 
See Farrar’s Early Days of Christianity, p. 


64 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


for the purpose of concealing (xiii. 18). In both respects, the Apocalypse 
stands as far from the Apostle John as possible. Long ago it was noted,! 
that the Apocalypse does not contain a single express citation,? but also that 
it is filled through and through with allusions to, and reminiscences of, the 
Old Testament. No book of the New Testament is, in tone, so completely 
Old-Testamental as is the Apocalypse; but, on the other hand, the Old- 
Testamental tone is heard nowhere less than in the Gospel and Epistles of 
John. 
describes in numbers a name whose letters, in their numerical valuation, 
yield that sum, is of such nature, that the writings of the Apostle John do 
not offer even the most remote similarity; but what is similar occurs in the 
Epistle of Barnabas, where the number 318 is applied so that 18 desig- 
nates the letters I H, the initial letters of the name of Jesus, while the 300, 


which is written with the cruciform T, is made to point to redemption. 


But the resort to an enigma whereby the writer of the Apocalypse? 


Similar is the designation of the name of Jesus, in the sibylline books, by 
the number 888;4 and the prophecy that Rome will stand as many years 
as the numerical value of the letters declares, viz., 948.5 [See Note IV., 
p- 88. ] 

The differences occurring in type of doctrine between the writer of the 
Apoc. and the Apostle John are, in general, to such an extent conditioned 
by diversity in their mode of conception, that the particular examples per- 
taining thereto, concur partly with those above cited. We confine ourselves 
to the presentation of only a few that are especially clear; more especially, 
as even among critics who, because of the diversity in doctrinal views, dis- 
tinguish the writer of the Apoc. from the Apostle John, it is not firmly 
established — and, from the nature of the case, it cannot in many cases be 
firmly established to all — wherein and how far a diversity of individuality 
in the composer is proved, and how much perhaps must be ascribed to diver- 
sity in the literary class of composition to which the books belong.® Of 
most decided significance is the one, that the Apoc. teaches a first and a 
second resurrection, of which the writings of the Apostle John know as 


little as they do of the one thousand years reign, which the Apoc. places 


3 xiii. 18. 

# Sibyll. Or., ed. Gall., i. p. 176. 

5 7ᾶ., vii. p. 715 sqq. 

6 Cf. Ewald, Comment., p. 74; Liicke, p. 


468 sqq.; and article by same author, on Rab- 
binical Exegesis, in The Expositor for 1877, 
1st series, vol. v. 7.] 


1 Cf. Bengel’s Gnomon oni. 3. 


2 Even noti. 7, with which John xix. 37 is 
apt to be compared. But the evangelist quotes ; 
the writer of the Apoc. does not; and not only 
the wording, but also the relation of the two 


passages, is essentially different. 


707 sqq.; Bleek, Stud. u. Krit., 1855, p. 500 sqq. 
On the other side, Hengstenb., ii. p. 444 sqq.; 
ef. also H. Gebhardt, Der Lehrbegriff der 
Apok., Gotha, 1878. [English, Edinburgh, 
1878. ] 


INTRODUCTION. 65 


between the first and the second resurrection.!. But this distinction in the 
type of doctrine appears especially conspicuous in that the Evangelist also 2 
speaks in his way of a twofold resurrection, but properly understands only 
the second to be expected at the Lord’s advent; while he places the spiritual 
quickening in faith, the passing from death to life,? as a spiritual resurrec- 
tion, parallel with the bodily resurrection at the last day. [See Note V., 
Ῥ. 88.] 

No less important is the dissimilarity in the representation of antichrist, 
and his hostility to Christ and his kingdom. The apostle knows of one 
antichrist ; i. e., a human personality who will appear in a notable way as 
an instrument of Satan.6 We do not believe, as does Bleek,* that John, in 
his first Epistle, mentions antichrist as an individual personality, in order to 
correct this idea, and to change it into that of the many antichrists: but, 
on the one hand, the apostle gives no complete and precise description of 
antichrist; and on the other, because of the inner connection between the 
one antichrist and the already present many antichrists, who have proceeded 
from the Christian Church, and now disturb it by the false doctrine denying 
that the Son of God has come in the flesh, he appears to the apostle to be 
not one who attacks Christianity externally through the hatred of Jews and 
heathen, but who internally agitates it with diabolical deceit by undermin- 
ing the foundation of faith. All this is different in the Apoc.; and just 
where an apparent similarity occurs,’ there is in fact the greatest difference. 
What is the antichrist, the beast from the 568,8 or the two-horned beast, 
the false prophet ?® Each, of course, in its manifestation, appears once in 
a definite human personality; 1° but in the person of the Roman emperor, 
in whom the Roman dominion over the world, displayed under the image of 
a beast, is concentrated and expressed. Even the false prophet has imme- 
diate reference, not with respect to an opposition to divine fundamental 
truth, but only as regards the first beast, whose blasphemous worship he 
requires. Such an idea of antichrist as the Apostle John indicates in his 
Epistles 11 is foreign to the Apoc. It not only presents other forms in which 
antichrist exists, but has an entirely different tendency and meaning. With 
this concurs the circumstance that the Apoc. does not contain the name 
ὁ ἀντίχριστος, to which it cannot be objected that the word is not found in 


1 xx. 4.sqq. 2 νυ. 25 sqq. 5 Cf. my Commentary on 1 John ii. 18. 
8 1 John iii. 14. 6 p. 203; cf. also Ewald, ii. 364 sqq. 
4 The thoroughly established exposition of 7 xvii. 11. 
John v. 25 sq. by Liicke, Meyer, etc., is at- 8 xiii. 1 sqq., xvii. 3 sqq., xx. 10. 
tacked to no purpose by Hengstenb., who ® xiii. 11 sqq., xx. 10. 


spiritualizes it. 10 xvii. 11. 11 2 John 7. 


66 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


the Gospel of John. For the Evangelist has no occasion to speak of anti- 
christ ; but the writer of the Apoc. could not leave antichrist unmentioned, 
because it is his express purpose to fully portray the judgment of the Lord 
upon the antichristian principle whose particular manifestations in the Apoc. 
are actually presented. [See Note VI., p. 88.] 

A deeply penetrating difference in an apparent similarity is displayed 
also at xix. 13, where Christ is designated by the name ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ. Al- 
ready the gen. τοῦ θεοῦ Shows something of a departure from the mode of 
contemplation of the Apostle John: it is, however, utterly inconceivable to 
us, how the apostle who wrote John i. 1 sqq. could have described the Logos 
under any other form whatever. If, against this, we are reminded that the 
accomplishment of the incarnation of the Word is presupposed by the de- © 
scription in Rev. xix. 11 sqq., the distinctive character of the doctrinal view 
of the Apostle John is presented on only one side; for the apostle, who, of 
course, teaches that the Word (of God) has become man, nevertheless no- 
where designates the divinely-human person of the Lord, even not in his 
heavenly state of exaltation, as the Word (Logos) of God. Hence Rev. 
xix. 13 seems to us to testify to a theological mode of thought which 
remarkably deviates from that of the Apostle John. (See Note VII., p. 88.) 

An indirect testimony to the fact that the Apoc. was not composed by 
the Evangelist John is given, finally, by many particular grammatical pecul- 
iarities.1 We believe that it is going too far when all the syntactical impro- 
prieties and grammatical irregularities which at first sight present them- 
selves in the Apoc. mode of expression are utilized to show the distinction 
between the style of the Apostle John and that of the Apoc. If the question 
be concerning the coloring of Apocalyptic style, as a whole, and the char- 
acter of the Apocalyptic mode of statement expressing itself in the whole 
structure of the language, which is in its nature conditioned by the nature 
of the subject, we need only refer to the fact* that the mode of thought 
which expresses itself in the mode of statement is foreign to the Evan- 
gelist; but then the simplicity and ruggedness, yea, even the grammatical 
incorrectness, besides the Hebraic tone of the Apocalyptic language, which 
appears to disdain the rules according to which man’s discourse is directed, 
because it has to reveal the immutable glory of divine mysteries,? are no 
more to be made prominent in the sense that the answer depends upon 
particular improprieties of construction in the Apoc., which have no analogy 
in the Gospel and Epistles of John; but these irregularities indicate only 
the peculiar Apocalyptic mode of statement to which they owe their origin. 


1 Cf. Ewald, p. 66 sqq.; Liicke, p. 662 sqq. 2 See above. 
On the other side, Hengstenb., p. 428 sqq. 3 Cf., e.g., i. 4. 


INTRODUCTION. 67 


On the other hand, it seems to us, in a rhetorical respect, significant, when 
the writer of the Apoc. does not use such customary expressions in the 
writings of the Apostle John as are well adapted to the Apocalyptic style, 
or when, on the contrary, he has favorite expressions of his own, not current 
with the Evangelist John, and yet such as do not belong within the special 
sphere of apocalyptic literature. The most important consideration, finally, 
is when the same expressions are understood and fashioned by the writer 
of the Apoc. in a different way than by the apostle. In this last respect, 
most significant to us appears to be the manner which the idea of the Lord 
as the Lamb of God, derived from Isa. liii., and become the common property 
of the Christian Church,! is expressed by each. The expression of the Evan- 
~ gelist, ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, is nowhere found in the Apoc.: on the other hand, the 
apocalyptic τὸ ἀρνίον (τὸ ἐσφαγμένον) is nowhere found in John’s Gospel or 
Epistles. When Hengstenb.,? however, says that even the word ἀρνίον is 
common to the Evangelist and the writer of the Apoc., and appeals to John 
xxi. 15, even though it be conceded that this passage was written by the 
Evangelist himself, the more significant becomes the constant distinction 
made in the designation of Christ. For, if the evangelist had used the 
term dpviov of the lambs of Christ’s flock, it would be the more incon- 
ceivable if the same writer in the Apoc. would constantly have used that 
expression of the Lord himself, but by an exception in his Gospel would 
have selected, in order to express this idea of the Lord, the term ἀμνὸς (τοῦ 
θεοῦ). [See Note VIII., p. 89.] The word νικᾶν, with respect to Christ and 
his believers, is common both to the Evangelist and the writer of the 
Apoc.; but, while the former constantly adds to it a definite object (τὸν 
κόσμον, Tov πονηρόν), the latter, as a rule,? uses the word absolutely.* [See 
Note IX., p. 89.] The writer of the Apoc. thinks and writes pevdjc;> the 
Evangelist thinks and writes ψεύστης 5 The former writes Ἱερουσαλήμ; 
the latter, Ἱεροσόλυμα, although the writer of the Apoc., in the formula A 
and Q, in the enumeration of xiii. 18, and in many particular expressions, 
follows the Greek mode. [See Note X., p. 89.] Here belongs, also, the use 
of the ἰδού in the Apoc., in distinction from the ide by the Evangelist. 

No less important than these linguistic variations, and partially con- 
nected therewith, is the circumstance that the entire series of expressions 
with which the Apostle John designates his peculiar fundamental conception 
of Christianity and its life, and which in his mouth, therefore, have such a 


1 Acts viii. 32; 1 Pet. i. 19. 1 John ii. 13, v. 4 sq. 
2 i. p. 204. 5 ii. 2, xxi. 8. 
3 Nevertheless, cf. xi. 7, xii. 11, xiii. 7. 6 John viii. 44, 55; 1 John i. 10, ii. 4, 22, 


4 Cf Rev. v. 5, iii. 21, with John xvi. 33; iv. 20, v. 10. 


68 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


characteristic tone, since there sounds in them the true and clear mysticism 
of a profound spiritual realism, is far distant from the Apocalypse. Ideas 
and expressions like ἡ ἀλήθεια, ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλῆθ., εἶναι ἐκ τῆς ἀλῆθ., ζωὴ αἰώνιος, ὁ κόσμος, 


ὁ πονηρός, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι and γεννηθῆναι, 


τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, σκοτία and φῶς, closely connected with which is that οὗ 


παῤῥησία, and others, the writer of the Apocalypse does not have. [See Note 
XI., p. 90.] But he has a phraseology of his own, not used by the Apostle 
John. The Apocalypse speaks of ὑπομονή, where the apostle would be ex- 
pected to use παῤῥησία and χαρά. Expressions like ἡ οἰκουμένη, of κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ 
τῆς γῆς, 7 μαρτυρία ’Ino., ὁ μάρτυς applied to Christ, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ 
πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν, etc., the apostle does not use. [See Note XII., p. 90.] 

The force of all that has thus been said concerning the indirect self- 
witness of the Apocalypse as to its author does not depend upon particular 
observations, but upon the impression of the book as a whole. If, then, to an 
unprejudiced mind, especially to one not biassed by any testimony of tra- 
dition, this impression is such that the composition of the Apocalypse by the 
apostle, i.e., the author of the Gospel and Epistles of John, is, at least, in 
the highest degree improbable, this indirect self-witness of the book is 
supported by just as decided ‘direct testimony, as over against that of tradi- 
tion, so far as it contradicts the indirect. 


SEC. V.—THE AUTHOR (DIRECT TESTIMONY). 


(8) The testimony of tradition concerning the origin of the Apocalypse. 

As the most ancient witness for the authorship of the Apocalypse by the 
Apostle John, his pupil Polycarp dare not be cited. Hengstenb., who finds 
both in the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, and in the encyclical 
letter of the church at Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of their bishop, 
“numerous and, in part, very clear traces” of the Apocalypse, especially 
makes prominent a passage “which justifies us in regarding it among the 
gentler hints;” viz., Ep. to the Phil., ch. vi.: Οὕτως οὖν δουλεύσωμεν αὑτῷ μετὰ 
φόβου καὶ πάσης εὐλαβείας καθὼς αὐτὸς ἐνετείλατο, καὶ οἱ εὐαγγελισάμενοι ἡμᾶς ἀπόστολοι, 
καὶ οἱ προφῆται, of προκηρύξαντες τὴν ἔλευσιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡ μῶν" ζηλωταὶ 
περὶ τὸ καλὸν, κιτ.λ. (“ Let us thus serve him with fear and all reverence, as he 
commanded, and as the apostles who preached the gospel to us, and the 
prophets who proclaimed before the coming of the Lord. Let us be zealous con- 
cerning what is good,” etc.). The prophets, says Hengstenb., named after the 
Lord himself and the apostles, and prophesying of the coming of the Lord, 
belong to the New Testament. But they are not personally different from 


1 Cf. 1 John ii. 28, iv. 17. 


INTRODUCTION. 69 


the apostles: on the contrary, prophecy reached its summit in the bearers 
of the apostolate, and even John himself appears in the Apocalypse as the 
representative of the prophets.1_ But since here the prophets could come 
into consideration only through a generally known and acknowledged repre- 
sentative, and, with the exception of John in the Apocalypse, such an one 
is not present, we must, according to the words of Polycarp, regard the 
Apostle and Prophet John the author of this book. But upon the basis of 
Hengstenb.’s conception of the expression οἱ προφῆται, a much more natural 
result would be a direct testimony to the contrary. If the prophets meant 
by Polycarp, who are mentioned after the apostles, be of the New Testa- 
ment, they must be distinguished from the apostles; perhaps John, the 
writer of the Apocalypse, also belonged to their number, — observe the plu- 
ral οἱ mpo¢jtat,— since we know that there were several prophetic writings 
which referred to the coming of the Lord, circulated in very ancient times, 
and, as the so-called Apocalypse of Peter, and the Shepherd of Hermas, not 
without ecclesiastical authority. But we are rather of the opinion? that 
Polycarp had in mind not Christian, but Old-Testament, prophets. That 
they are mentioned after the apostles, is necessary, because Polycarp begins 
with the Lord himself, to whom his apostles are added. What the apostle 
has said concerning the coming of the Lord belongs to their εὐαγγελίσασθαι; 
but the ancient prophets had already before proclaimed (προκηρύξ) that the 
Lord will appear for judgment. Upon this Old-Testament prophecy, Poly- 
carp bases his earnest admonition, like Clement of Rome.? 

Papias,* Hengstenb. claims as a witness to the composition of the Apoca- 
lypse by the Apostle John with the greater emphasis, as he regards him an 
immediate pupil of the apostle. The latter point is especially to be kept in 
view, as well because of the testimony which Papias actually gives — even 
though according to the documents offered only mediately — concerning the 
origin of the Apocalypse, as also because of the highly characteristic way in 
which that assumed relation of Papias to the Apostle John is stated by sev- 
eral Church Fathers to be a very important part of the ecclesiastical tradition 
concerning the Apocalypse. It is established by a testimony of Irenaeus, 
preserved by Eusebius, that Papias composed only one writing; viz., five 
books under the title of Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγῆσις. In a fragment of this work,® 
expressing his predilection for oral tradition to be acknowledged trust- 


worthy, he says: é δέ που καὶ παρηκολουθηκώς τις τοὶς πρεσβυτέροις ἔλθοι, τοὺς τῶν 


1.1.1, xxii. 6, 9, 16. 4 Οἵ, Weiffenbach, Das Papiasfragment, 
2 With Liicke, p. 520 sqq.; Bleek, Stud. wu. Giessen, 1874. On the other side, Leimbach, 
Krit., 1855, p. 181 sq. Das Papiasfragment, Gotha, 1875. 


8 Ep. to the Corinthians, i., c. 23. 5H. E., iii. 39. 6 In Eusebius, as cited. 


70 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


πρεσβυτέρων ἀνέκρινον λόγους " τί Avdpéac ἢ τί Πέτρος εἷπεν ἢ τί Φίλιππος ἢ τί Θωμὰς ἢ 
Ἰάκωβος ἢ τὶ ᾿Ιωάννης ἢ Ματθαῖος ἢ τις ἕτερος TOV τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν, ἅ Te Ἀριστίων καὶ ὁ 
πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης, οἱ τοῦ κυρίου μαθηταὶ λέγουσιν (“If then any one Πᾶν- 
ing attended upon the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings, — 
what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew 
or any other of the Lord’s disciples said; which things Aristion and the Pres- 
byter John, the disciple of the Lord, say”). From these words, Eusebius 
infers that Papias mentions two persons of the name John; viz., the apostle 
who is named in the rank with Andrew, Peter, Matthew, etc., and the John 
designated by the special title ὁ πρεσβύτερος, who of course with Aristion 
belonged, as well as the apostles mentioned, to the disciples of the Lord, i.e., 
to his immediate ear and eye witnesses, but yet in the most express manner 
is distinguished from the twelve. In the second place, from these words 
Eusebius infers, what he confirms by other passages of Papias not further 
quoted; viz., that Papias was an immediate pupil, not of the Apostle, but of 
the Presbyter John.+ 


quoted words of Papias, is recognized by Hengstenb. when he ventures to assert 


Neither of the facts presented by Eusebius, from the 


that those words, just as they sound, could be understood otherwise than 
Eusebius has interpreted, and that therefore in them no distinction is to be 
made between the Apostle and the Presbyter John, as two separate persons. 
We maintain, on the other hand, that there is no need of opposing any 
thing further than a reference to the text, which seems so unambiguous that 
we regard any reference to the exegetical discussion cited from Eusebius as 
superfluous. What deceives Hengstb., so that he misunderstands the correct 
meaning of the words of Papias, is not only the fear of losing the testimony 
of Papias to the composition of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John, but 
also the dread of ascribing to Irenaeus a significant error in the same respect. 
When, e.g., Irenaeus writes, Ταῦτα δὲ καὶ Παπίας ᾿Ιωάννου μὲν ἀκουστῆς, Ἰ]Τολυκάρπου 
δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονώς, ἀρχαῖος ἀνῆρ, ἐγγράφως ἐπιμαρτυρεὶ «.7.A. (To these things Pa- 
pias, a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, an ancient man, bears 
witness in writing”),2 he undoubtedly designates Papias as a hearer of ‘the 
Apostle John: in the mouth of Irenaeus, the mere name ᾿Ιωάννου ἀκ. can refer 


to no other person, especially since, in what precedes, it is expressly said of 


1 Tlar. τοὺς μὲν τῶν ἀποστόλων λόγους παρὰ 
τῶν αὐτοῖς παρηκολουθηκότων ὁμολογεῖ παρειλη- 

: 3 ᾿ ΕΑ ΕΝ : 
φέναι, ᾿Αριστίωνος δὲ καὶ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου 
Ἰωάννου αὐτήκοον ἑαυτόν φησι γενέσθαι" 
ὀνομαστὶ γοῦν πολλάκις αὐτῶν μνημονεύσας ἐν 
τοῖς αὐτοῦ συγγράμασι τίθησιν αὐτῶν παραδό- 


σεις (‘‘Papias affirms that he received the 


sayings of the apostles from those who accom- 
panied them, and he further asserts that he 
heard in person Aristion and the Presbyter 
John. Therefore, frequently mentioning them 
by name, he gives their traditions in his writ- 
ings’’). 

2B. V., xxxiii. 4. 


INTRODUCTION. 71 


the Apostle John, Quemadmodum presbyteri meminerunt, qui Joannem discipu- 
lum Domini viderunt, audisse se ab eo, quemadmodum de illis temporibus docebat 
Dominus et dicebat (“ As the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, 
related that they had. heard from him how the Lord used to teach concern- 
ing those times? and say”). Then follows the well-known story of the 
mythical vines.2, But with the same justice with which we refuse credit to 
this report of Irenaeus, upon the ground of what we know of our Lord’s dis- 
courses through the Apostle John in his Gospel, must we also, on the ground 
of the testimony of Papias, charge Irenaeus with an error when he makes 
Papias a pupil of the Apostle John,’ although he announces himself as a 
pupil of the Presbyter John. 

The question now is, What did Papias testify concerning the Apoc. ? 
We have three data whereby this question may be answered. 1. Towards 
the end of the fifth century, Andreas writes, in the introduction to his Com- 
mentary on the Apoc., that there was no need to speak at length concerning 
the inspiration of the book,‘ since not only Gregory and Cyril, but also the 
more ancient writers, Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, testified 
to its trustworthiness.’ Passages from these writers were also quoted in his 
commentary. That Papias, in express words, stated that the Apoc. was 
“trustworthy,” or in what way he established this, Andreas does not say. 
Papias scarcely could have had already occasion to defend the Apoc. against 
attacks ; but it is, on the contrary, highly probable that Andreas derived 
his testimony for the trustworthiness of the book from the circumstance 
that Papias and the other men mentioned quoted the Apoc. in their writings 
as Holy Scripture. ᾿Αξιόπιστον (trustworthy) is in Andreas the correlate for 


θεόπνευστος (inspired). At any rate, the important fact is established, that 


1 By ‘‘those times” are meant “the times 
of the kingdom when the just, rising from the 
dead, shall reign.”’ 

2 «The days shall come in which vines shall 
grow, each having ten thousand branches, and 
in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each 
true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one 
of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on 
every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, 
and every grape when pressed will give five 
and twenty metretes of wine,” etc. 

3 Hengstenb. is in error when he regards this 
as also the former opinion of Eusebius. In 
his Chronikon, there is related with historical 
fidelity, first, what Irenaeus states concerning 
the length of the life of the Apostle John; and, 


secondly, that Papias and Polycarp had been 
regarded as pupils of the Apostle John (ed. 
Aucher. ii. 69: ‘‘Joannem apost. usque ad 
Trajani tempora permansisse Irenaeus tradit. 
Post quem ejusdem auditores agnoscebantur 
Papias Hieropolitanus et Polycarpus,” etc. 
‘‘Trenaeus teaches that the Apostle John re- 
mained until the time of Trajan, after whom 
Papias of Hieropolis and Polycarp were ac- 
knowledged as his hearers’’). Hence it does 
not follow that Polycarp was properly regarded 
such, and that Papias was actually a pupil of 
the Apostle John. 

4 περὶ τοῦ θεοπνεύστου τῆς βίβλου. 

5 τῶν ἀρχαιοτέρῶν Παππίου --- ταύτῃ προσ- 


μαρτυρούντων τὸ ἀξιόπιστον. 


72 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN, 


Papias used the Apoc. as an inspired writing. But Hengstenb. very precipi- 
tately infers from this, that Papias therefore testifies to the composition of 
the Apoc. by the Apostle John. Andreas also has apparently presupposed 
this, but with the same want of foundation, and undoubtedly influenced like- 
wise by the (erroneous) testimony of Irenaeus, who is mentioned together 
with Papias. That Papias has not expressly mentioned the Apostle John as 
the author of the Apoc., must also be inferred from the silence of Eusebius 
on this highly important subject, although the term ἀξιόπιστον of the Apoc. 
᾿ς ἴῃ the sense of Papias is perfectly justified in case he understands, as the 
composer of the book, that John whom he calls the presbyter; for this 
Presbyter John also, together with Aristion, Papias regards as, in addition 
to the apostles, a source of the pure doctrinal tradition, since he stood on 
an equality with them by being an immediate disciple of the Lord. 2. From 
the words of Papias, which Andreas quotes on Rev. xii. 7, nothing can be 
inferred concerning the question as to what John, Papias regards the author 
of the Apoc. It is even in the highest degree doubtful, whether that cita- 
tion from the writing of Papias had any direct reference to Rev. xii. 7.1 
Andreas, in explaining what is said in Rev. xii. 7, according to the doctrine 
that the angels to whom God had intrusted a certain sovereignty over the 
world, had fallen from their estate because of pride and envy,” quotes ver- 
batim,? for the two points of this doctrine, two passages of Papias: ἐνίοις δὲ 
αὐτῶν, δηλαδὴ τῶν πάλαι θείων ἀγγέλων, καὶ περὶ THY γῆν διακοσμήσεως ἔδωκεν ἄρχειν " καὶ 
καλῶς ἄρχειν mapnyyinoe. καὶ ἑξῆς φησι" εὶς οὐ δέον (δὲ) συνέβη τελευτῆσαι τὴν τάξιν 
αὐτὼν (‘But to some of them, 1.6., the divine angels of old, God both 
gave to rule over the arrangement of the earth, and he commissioned them 
to rule well. And he says, immediately after this: But it happened that 
their arrangement came to nothing”). According to its original meaning, 
the ἑξῆς must mean that the second declaration of Papias immediately fol- 
lows the first; but Andreas notes it by a special form of quotation, because 
it is to his purpose to support by the authority of Papias his own exposition 
of Rev. xii. 7, according to the two sides of the doctrinal view on which this 
rests. Of a “battle-array” of angels, as Hengstenb. translates the word 
raéic,* there is no mention in Papias; for, even though the reading were not 
οὐ δεόν, as the older MS. of Andreas has it,5 but οὐδέν, the τάξις of the angels 
could be regarded in no other sense than that in which Andreas shortly 
before has spoken of the ἔκπτωσις τῆς ἀγγελικῆς τάξεως ; ® and just in reference 


1 Cf. Liicke, with whom also Bleek agrees, 4 Cf. Rev, xii. 7: πολεμῆσαι. 
against Hengs ‘nb. 5 Liicke, p. 358 sq. 
2 πρώτῃ --- ἐκ. THTEL τῆς ἀγγελικῆς τάξεως. 6 Liicke has well compared with this what 


8 ἐπὶ λέξεως. Justin M. writes in his Apology, ii. ο. 5: τὴν 


INTRODUCTION. 73 


to this cites Papias, because he already teacnes that the rank of angels, i.e., 
the high station given them by God, has changed to that which is not right, 
i.e., that the angels have fallen. In case now Papias had even applied 
Rey. xii. 7 to the doctrine of the angels, which is not clear from the quota- 
tion in Andreas, it is possible that he gave his judgment in connection with 
that passage. But, in this case, nothing further would result than what we 
have already heard from Andreas; viz., that Papias used the Apoc. because 
he acknowledged its trustworthiness. 3. Besides, from what Eusebius 
reports concerning the chiliastic expressions of Papias, it by no means fol- 
lows that the latter used the Apoc. as a writing of the Apostle John.} 
Eusebius,? after citing some fabulous narratives concerning Papias, pretend- 
edly taken from tradition,’ says: καὶ ἄλλα δὲ ὁ aitdg ὡσὰν ἐκ παραδόσεως 
ἀγοάφου εἰς αὑτὸν ἥκοντα παρατέθειται, ξένας τέ τινας παραβολὰς τοῦ σωτῆρος καὶ 
διδασκαλίας αὑτοῦ, καὶ τινα ἄλλα μυθικώτερα" ἐν οἷς καὶ χιλιάδα τινά φῃσιν ἐτῶν ἔσεσθαι 
μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, σωματικῶς τῆς Χριστοῦ βασιλείας ἐπί ταυτησὶ τῆς γῆς 
ὑποστησομένης (“ The same person has set down other things as coming to 
him from unwritten tradition: among these, some strange parables and in- 
structions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. 
- Among these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection 
from the dead, when the bodily reign of Christ will be established on this 
earth.”) And Eusebius decides: ἅ καὶ ἡγοῦμαι τὰς αποστολικὰς παρεκδεξάμενον 
διηγήσεις ὑπολαβεῖν, τὰ ἐν ὑποδείγμασι πρὸς αὑτῶν μυστικῶς εἰρημένα μὴ συνεωρακότα 
σφόδρα γάρ τοι σμικρὸς, ὧν τὸν νοῦν ---- φαίνεται (“ Which things I think that he 
imagined, as if authorized by the apostolic narratives, not seeing at the same 
time the things mystically spoken in addition in the types; for it is evident 
that he was very limited in comprehension”). Hengstenb. assumes that 
Papias derived his chiliasm, not from the παράδοσις ἄγραφος (unwritten tradi- 
tion),* as Papias himself asserts, according to the report of Eusebius, but 
from manuscript sources, viz., from the ai ἀποστολικαὶ διηγήσεις (the apostolic 
narratives); but since, if the apostolic narratives be understood as manu- 
script, “they could be regarded only especially as the Apoc.,” this would 
prove the Apoc. to be an apostolic book. In order to destroy the plausibility 


μὲν TOV ἀνθρώπων Kal τῶν ὑπό τὸν οὐρανὸν πρό- 2 1.¢. 


νοιαν ἀγγέλοις, ods ἐπὶ τούτοις ἔταξε, παρέδωκεν. 
Οἱ δὲ ἄγγελοι παραβάντες τήνδε τὴν τάξιν, K.T.A. 
(““ Committed the care of men and of the things 
beneath the heaven to the angels whom he ap- 
pointed over them. But the angels transgress- 
ing this appointment,” etc.). 

1 Cf. Lticke, p. 532 sqq., against Hengstenb., 
p. 385 sqq. 


3 παραδοξά τινα ἱστορεῖ και ἄλλα ὡσὰν ἐκ 
παραδόσεως εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλθόντα (““ He relates, also, 
some other miraculous deeds as coming to him 
from tradition ”’). 

4 Since this doctrine has its source solely in 
the Apoc., and is found nowhere independently 
of this book. 


74 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


of this argument, there is scarcely need of the minuteness which Liicke does 
not shun; but it is sufficient simply to indicate that Papias himself, who 
does not mention a word of any apostolic narratives, justifies his chiliasm 
alone by the appeal to unwritten tradition; although Eusebius expresses his 
opinion (ἡγοῦμαι) that Papias derived his chiliasm by a misunderstanding of 
the narratives which Eusebius acknowledges as apostolic. But that Euseb. 
has counted the Apoc. among the apostolic narratives, Hengstenb. does not 
assert. If thereby, as is probable, he understood all evangelical literature, 
he has judged concerning Papias from a sound historical basis; for Justin 
M.,1 and still more Irenaeus,? who himself appeals to Papias, and whom 
Eusebius mentions after the indorsement given chiliasm by Papias, develop 
their chiliastic opinions in no way from the Apoc. alone, but just as assuredly 
from passages in the old prophets and the Gospels. Papias, therefore, the 
pupil of the Apostle John, did not say that the Apoc. was composed by the 
Apostle John; but he is the most ancient witness concerning the book, as 
he used that which he regarded a writing of divine authority. In the sense 
of Papias, the ἀξιόπιστον of the Apoc. concurs well with its composition by 
the Presbyter John; and Papias could not have said what must have then 
led Eusebius into error, under the supposition that this Presbyter John 
actually wrote the Apoc. 

The most ancient, and, because of his age, most important witness to the 
origin of the Apoc. from the Apostle John, is Justin Martyr. In the Dia- 
logue with Trypho, written between the years 139 and 161, he says, after he 
has treated of the one thousand years reign according to an O. T. passage,4 
Καὶ ἔπειτα καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀνῆρ τις, ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰωάννης, εἷσ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν 
ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ αὐτῷ χίλια ἔτη ποιῆσειν ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ τοὺς τῷ ἡμετέρῳ Χριστῷ 
πιστεύσαντας προεφήτευσε, x. τ. Δ. (“ And then there was also with us a man 
whose name was John, who prophesied by a revelation that was made to 
him, that those who believed in our Christ would spend a thousand years in 
Jerusalem”). Eusebius ® already has said of these words: μέμνηται δὲ καὶ τῃς 
Ἰωάννου ἀποκαλυψεως, σαφῶς τοῦ ἀποστόλου αὐτὴν εἶναι λέγων (“ He mentions also 
the Apocalypse of John, clearly saying that it is the Apostle’s’’). It is utterly 
inconceivable that Justin would have designated the Apostle to the Jew 
Trypho, just as the words run; it is also manifest from the nature and 
design of the writings of Justin, as also from the peculiar character of the 
Apoc., that we find in other places only a few allusions to it, and especially 
that in no other passage does he refer to the Apostle John as its author: 
there is consequently no reason for denying that the words εἰς τῶν ἀποστόλων 


1 Dialog. with Trypho, ch. 81. 8c. 81. 4 Ps. xc. 4. 
2 L. V. c. 33, 34. δ H. E., iy. 18, 


INTRODUCTION. 75 


τοῦ Χριστοῦ are Justin’s, and esteeming them a gloss that has entered the 
text previous to the time of Eusebius.1 Besides, the very brevity of 
Justin’s words makes the impression that he expresses what, according 
to his knowledge, is the view concerning the composition of the Apoc. uni- 
versally held in the Church. Whether he knew of any other tradition, we 
are not informed: he certainly spoke according to a tradition indubitable 
to himself. Nevertheless, the objective certainty of this tradition repre- 
sented by Justin does not depend upon the fact that? the dialogue with 
Trypho was held at Ephesus, and that, too, scarcely a half-century subse- 
quent to the composition of the Apoc.? For even if we ignore for the present 
the contrary testimony given by the Apoc. itself concerning its author, and 
its time of composition, the tradition that it was written towards the close 
of Domitian’s reign rests upon no word of Justin; and, even though it 
should be conceded as at least highly probable that the confusion of the 
Apostle with the Presbyter John lies at the foundation of the tradition 
represented by Justin, it is in no wise inconceivable, that also im Ephesus, 
where the activity of the apostle for years forced the remembrance of the 
presbyter into the background, a tradition gained entrance which ascribed 
to the apostle a book whose esteem by the Church was constantly increasing. 

The importance of Justin’s testimony is increased by that of Irenaeus, who 
follows the tradition of the former concerning the composition of the Apoca- 
lypse by the Apostle John, but also adds something concerning the time of 
composition. Irenaeus, who in his youth had seen and heard Polycarp,* not 
only quotes many passages of the Apocalypse as a work of the Apostle John, 
but also writes,° in defence of the reading χἔς (666) of Rev. xiii. 18: ἐν 
πᾶσι τοῖς σπουδαίοις Kal ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τούτου κειμένου, Kal μαρτυρούντων 
αὐτῶν ἐκείνων τῶν κατ’ ὄψιν τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην ξωρακότων, x.7.A. (“ This number being 
found in all approved and ancient copies, and those who had seen John face 
to face testifying”). After he has treated of the doubtful meaning of that 
enigmatical number, he continues that it was not the intention of the seer 
that the meaning should at once be discerned: é γὰρ ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν τῷ viv καιρῷ 
κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, δι’ exeivov ἂν εῤῥεθη τοῦ καὶ THY ἀποκάλυψιν ἑωρακότος. οὐδὲ 
γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπί τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς 
Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς (“For if it were necessary that his name should be dis- 
tinctly revealed in the present time, it would have been announced by him 
who beheld the apocalyptic vision; for that was seen no very long time 


1 Against Rettig: Uber das erweislich dlteste 3 Hengstenb. 
Zeugniss fiir die Aechtheit der Apok., Leipz. 4 Ed. ad Florin., in Euseb., H. Z., v. 20; 
1829; cf. Liicke, p. 549 sqq. Iren., Opp., i. p. 822. 


2 Cf. Euseb., l. c. 5 L. V.c. 30; Euseb., v. 8. 


76 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign”). TIre- 
naeus as “a true Catholic Churchman, in whom the Oriental and Occidental 
dogmatical and ethical traditions are concentrated,” + is of high importance, 
as he establishes the existence of the traditions which we have first found in 
Justin, and whereof there are still other traces from the second century,? 
and that, too, without having the opportunity to consider a contrary tradition 
If we add further that the Alex- 


andrians, Clement and Origen, and that Tertullian and Cyprian, without 


concerning the origin of the Apocalypse. 


much reflection used the Apocalypse as a writing of the Apostle John, and 
that even Dionysius of Alexandria, who from the testimony of the book 
itself argues against its composition by the Apostle John,’ does not depend 
upon a critical examination of the favorable tradition, Irenaeus appears as 
the most important witness of a very extensive and indubitably received 
account. Hengstb. also finds the strongest proof of the historical truth of 
this tradition in the testimony of those who had seen John. We concede 
that the μαρτυροῦντες cited by Irenaeus, which is decisive as to the correctness 
of the reading in Rev. xiii. 18, in the sense of Irenaeus, must be taken as 
a testimony for tne composition of the book by the apostle; and further, 
that, according to the same sense, we must decide whether the self-witness 
of the Apocalypse be not directly contrary to that of Irenaeus and the tra- 
dition which he represents. But just because of this self-witness of the 
Avocalypse, we deny that the men who themselves actually saw John, and 
who were competent witnesses concerning the true reading of the Apoca- 
lypse, actually testified what Irenaeus undoubtedly presupposes, and Heng- 
stenb. asserts; viz., that the Apostle John composed the book. The question 


is as to whether we are in any way to explain the misunderstanding of Ire- 


1 Liicke, p. 573. 

2 The fragment of Murato-i (Wieseler, a. a. 
O.; cf. J. Van Gilse, Disputatio de antiquis- 
simo librorum sacrorum N. Foed. catalago, 
qui vulgo frag. Murat. appellatur, Amst. 
1852) quotes, at any rate, the Apoc. of John, 
even though the text is uncertain. 
to Ewald (Jahrb. 1858, v. p. 185; cf. Joh. 
Schriften, ii. p. 349 sqq.), the fragmentist re- 


According 


gards the Apoc. as a work of the Apostle 
John, but remarks that it is not generally ac- 
knowledged. But the latter statement Ewald 
bases upon the improbable conjecture that in 
the sentence, ‘‘ Apocalypses etiam Joannis et 
Petri tantum recipimus, quam [quas?] quidam 


ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt” (‘*‘ The 


Apocalypses of John and Peter also, we only 
receive, which some of ours are unwilling 
should be read in the church” ), instead of the 
last word nolunt, it should read volunt (wish, 
intead of are unwilling). Like the fragmentist, 
undoubtedly, the rest, who used ‘‘the Apoc. 
of John,” thought of the Apostle John. So 
Melito, who (according to Euseb., H. £., iv. 26) 
wrote Concerning the Devil, and the Apoc. of 
John ; Polycrates (id.); the churches of Lyons 
and Vienna, who in their letter (in Euseb., v. i.) 
employ the term Apoc., without designating 
the author; Theophilus, who ‘“ uses proofs 
from John’s Apoc.”’ (Euseb., iv. 24), and Apol- 
lonius, of whom Euseb. (v. 18) makes the same 


report. 3 In Euseb., 2,27. £., vii. 25. 


INTRODUCTION. Τὴ 


naeus, which must have occurred as certainly as the Apocalypse itself con- 
tradicts this chief witness, as well as whether we perhaps can find traces of 
another tradition deviating from Justin and Irenaeus, but not harmonizing 
with the declarations of this book. 

That those μαρτυροῦντες gave their testimony orally to Irenaeus himself, is 
not only not said, but the present form μαρτυρύυντων permits us, on the con- 
trary, to think of witnesses still at hand, as well as those otherwise considered 
accessible, as, e.g., such men as in their writings mention the Revelation of 
John, and especially xiii. 18, men like Papias, whom Irenaeus erroneously 
considers as “having seen John face to face,” and others who actually 
might have seen the apostle. In like manner, as from the superscription 
of 2 and 3 John (ὁ πρεσβύτερος), the tradition arose that these Epistles 
were written by the Presbyter, and not by the Apostle John,! the tradition 
of the composition of the Apocalypse by the Apostle John was the more 
readily attached to the name whereby he generally calls himself, as, in the 
remembrance of the Church, the presbyter must naturally have become, 
more and more, less prominent when compared with the apostle. The cir- 
cumstance that both were active in the same neighborhood of Asia Minor, 
perhaps simultaneously, might have supported the mistake. Here lies the 
weak point in the otherwise so strong a bulwark of ecclesiastical tradition, 
advanced by such a man as Irenaeus, its leading representative. He is 
chargeable with two closely connected misunderstandings: he has made 
Papias a pupil of the Apostle John, and, without doubt chiefly upon the 
apparent authority of this man, who is placed by Andreas among the oldest 
witnesses concerning the Apocalypse, John the author of the Apocalypse 
is regarded the apostle; while, in both cases, the self-witness of Papias and 
of the writer of the Apocalypse contradict the statement of ecclesiastical 
tradition. ~ 

It would be strange, if in Christian antiquity there were no trace of a 
correct understanding of the declarations of the Apocalypse itself concerning 
its author, in opposition to the prevalent tradition, which, from a misunder- 
standing of the name of John in the Apocalypse, designates the apostle as 
its author, just as Euseb. expressly contradicts the statement (of Irenaeus) 
that Papias was an immediate pupil of the apostle, upon the ground of the 
very words of Papias. Such a trace is found not only in the rejection of the 
Apocalypse on the part of the Alogi, due to an antichristian mode of thought, 
nor only the judgment of the Roman presbyter Caius, resting upon the 
same grounds, that the Apocalypse was composed by Cerinthus and supposi- 


1 Cf. my Commentary, vol. ii. p. 460 sqq. 


78." THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


titiously ascribed to the Apostle J ohn.! From the fact, that, in the Shep- 
herd of Hermas, the Apocalypse is not used,? no conclusion dare be drawn 
concerning any opinion of Hermas as to the non-apostolic origin of the 
book,? especially as, on the other hand, it is probable that his entire writ- 
ing, because of its apocalyptic nature, originated from the model of the 
Johannean Apocalypse, so that the Shepherd itself directly confirms what 
even without it stands fast; viz., that the Apocalypse, which Papias already 
regarded inspired, at the time of Hermas and in his circle enjoyed ecclesi- 
astical authority. The silence of 2 Peter, emphasized by Liicke, is to be 
explained in the same way. For, if the Epistle be genuine, it was written 
before the Apocalypse; but if it were written in the beginning of the second 
century,‘ it is very readily conceivable that the blasphemers expressly men- 
tioned ὅ asked their unbelieving question because they saw the prophecies of 
the Apocalypse concerning the Lord’s coming unfulfilled. But why is the 
Apocalypse, together with the four general Epistles (2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, 
and Jude) wanting in the Syriac translation, the Peschito, originating at the 
time of Irenaeus, about the year 200? The conjecture at least is at hand, 
viz., that, in the most ancient Syrian tradition, the apostolic origin of the 
Apoc. was no more received than that of 2 and 3 John: for only in later 
times, after the introduction of montanistic chiliasm, is the strange phe- 
nomenon explained, that the Apoc. is received as a work of the Apostle John 
and inspired, and yet classed “among the apocrypha,” ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ; ὃ 1.e., 
regarded inappropriate for public ecclesiastical use, yea, even such as should 
be expressly excluded from the ecclesiastical canon,’ because of the fear of 
its being misunderstood and abused. More explicit in proof, are the verdicts 
The fact that Dionysius, the 
pupil and successor of Origen, reached his criticism of the book in his con- 


of Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius. 


troversy against its chiliastic abuse, makes the calm, clear thoughtfulness of 
his criticism, based upon the nature of the Apoc., the more praiseworthy 


᾿ 


1 In Euseb., H. Z., iii. 28 : ΚΚήρινθος ὃ δι᾽ αποκα- 
λύψεων ὡς ὑπὸ αποστόλου μεγάλου γεγραμμένων 
τερατολογίας ἡμῖν ὡς δι᾿ ἀγγέλων αὐτῷ δεδειγμέ- 
νας ψευδόμενος ἐπειςάγει λέγων, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάσ- 
τασιν ἐπίγειον εἶναι τὸ βασίλειον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
καὶ παλιν ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἜΣ ἐν ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ 
τὴν σάρκα πολιτευομένην δουλεύειν, K.T.A. 
(* But Cerinthus, by means of revelations 
which he pretended were written by a great 
apostle, also falsely pretended to wonderful 
things, as if they were shown him by angels, 
asserting that after the resurrection there 


would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and 
that the flesh, again inhabiting Jerusalem, 
would be subject to desires and pleasures’’). 

2 Cf. Liicke, p. 546, against Stern, who at- 
tempts to find a use of it in particular pas- 
sages. 

8. Against Liicke. 

4 As Huther thinks. 

5 2 Pet. ii. 3. 

6 Gregor. Nyss., in Liicke, p. 629. 

7 Cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazi- 
anz., in Lticke, pp. 630, 632. 


INTRODUCTION. 79 


and important, when compared with the anti-chiliastic arbitrary decision of 
a Caius. Dionys.1! stands entirely upon the basis of inner criticism: from 
the testimony of the Apoe. itself, he infers that the author could not be 
regarded as the Apostle John; and a comparison with the indubitable writ- 
ings of the apostle he uses as a further proof of the view that the author of 
the Apoc. could not have been the well-known apostle. At the same time, 
Dionys. in no way denies that the author was a holy and inspired man, of 
the name of John.? It is manifest that Dionysius knows that his view is in 
conflict with the ecclesiastical tradition, which also his predecessors, Clement 
and Origen, follow; he also is acquainted with no tradition favorable to 
himself: his opposition, therefore, contains a testimony to the prevalence of 
the tradition concerning the composition of the Apoc. by the Apostle John. 
Yet hereby the importance which scientific criticism must attach to Dionys. 
is not diminished; for the main point is, if we otherwise may ask the eccle- 
siastical tradition concerning its foundation in truth, that we have in Dio- 
nysius a man just as churchly disposed as he is scientifically cultured, whom 
the ecclesiastical tradition did not hinder from understanding correctly the 
testimony of the Apoc. concerning itself, and from combining with the exe- 
getical opposition to the chiliastic exegesis represented by Justin and Ire- 
naeus, a critical opposition to the tradition concerning the composition of 
the Apoc. by the Apostle John, going hand in hand with that exegesis.® 
Important already is the fact that Dionysius, upon the ground of the Apoc. 
itself, protested against the tradition which misunderstood the book. He is 
supplemented by Eusebius the historian, since this writer also applies the 
testimony of Papias— only understood differently than by Irenaeus, i.e., in 
the sense of Papias himself — against the commonly received ecclesiastical 
tradition. Eusebius‘ is uncertain whether the Apoc. should be enumerated 
among the ὁμολογουμένα or the νόθα. What causes his vacillation is not the 
subjective criticism of Dionysius, but, as may be learned also from Book 
III. "δ, 39, especially the testimony of Papias; for in connection with his 


1 Cf. Euseb., H. £Z., vii. 24, 25. 

2 καλεῖσθαι μὲν οὖν αὐτὸν ᾿Ιωάννην, καὶ εἶναι 
τὴν γραφὴν ᾿Ιωάννου ταύτην, οὐκ ἀντερῶ" ἁγίου 
μὴν γὰρ εἶναι τινος καὶ θεοπνεύστου συναινῶ, οὐ 
μὴν ῥᾳδίως ἂν συνθοίμην τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν ἀπόσ- 
τολου, k.7.A. (1 do not deny, therefore, that 
he was called John, and that this was the 
writing of a John; and I agree that it was the 
work also of some holy and inspired man. But 
I would not readily agree that this was the 
apostle,” etc.). 


8 In the exegetico-critical treatment by Dio- 
nysius, the theological tendency is already to 
be recognized, against which men of the pres- 
ent day, like Hengstenb. and Auberlen, make 
resistance. Hence a deeply rooted principle 
comes to the surface in a characteristic way, 
in that Hengstenb. disparages Dionysius justin 
the degree that Liicke gives him the most just 
recognition. 

44H. E£., iii. 25. 


80 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


contradiction of the report (of Irenaeus) that Papias himself had heard the 
Apostle John, —although Papias calls himself a pupil of the Presbyter 
John, — Eusebius expresses the conjecture that John, the writer of the Apoc., 
might be identical with the Presbyter John.1_ The testimony, therefore, that 
the Apostle John wrote the Apoc., Eusebius can find nowhere in Papias. 
Papias has mentioned one called John as the author of the book; but he 
has nowhere expressly designated him as his teacher, for otherwise Eusebius 
would more confidently express his conjecture that the presbyter is actually 
its author. Yet for us, who with Dionysius, and in accordance with the 
testimony of the Apoc. itself, deny that the Apostle John is its author, 
the conjecture of Eusebius is the only one tenable. For, on the one hand, the 
apocalyptic John presents himself as a personality well known and esteemed 
in the circle of churches in Asia Minor; and, on the other hand, Papias, in 
speaking of the Apocalypse of “the John,” points to an author by whose per- 
sonality the trustworthiness of the book was assured. Of John Mark, whom 
Papias designates by the uniform name Mark, we cannot think: we know 
also, through Papias, of only two men by the name of John. If we cannot 
regard the apostle the author of the Apoc., we must abide by the probable 
conjecture of the Presbyter John. (See Note XIII., p. 90.) 

What the ecclesiastical tradition says concerning the lime and place of 
the composition of the Apoc. is of such a nature that thereby the error 
which lies at the foundation of the traditional statement concerning the 
person of the author is only presented on another side. All statements of 
ecclesiastical tradition concerning the time and place of composition are 
inseparably connected with that concerning the banishment of the Apostle 
John to the Island of Patmos; i. e., they proceed from an utter misunder- 
standing of Rev. i. 9, in like manner as the tradition concerning the com- 
position of the book by the apostle is based upon the name of the author 
of the Apoc. The first to speak of a martyrdom of the Apostle John. is 
Polycrates, who? writes: ἔτι δὲ καί ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ κυρίου ἀναπεσών --- 
καὶ μάρτυς (“John also, who rested on the bosom of the Lord —and mar- 
tyr’’). Undoubtedly he had in view Rev. i. 9, and follows the tradition 
that the apostle wrote the Apoc. Irenaeus is the first to make a statement 
concerning the time of origin of the Apoc., and that, too, in such a way as 
to designate manifestly, besides, the time of the apostle’s banishment. In 
the passage already cited, he says the Apoc. was beheld already at the end 


1 εἰκὸς yap Tov δεύτερον, εἰ μή τις ἐθέλοι Tov _ the first class, the Apoc. called by the name of 
πρῶτον, τὴν ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματος φερομένην ᾿Ιωάννου John’’). 
ἀποκάλυψιν ἑωρακὲναι (‘It is proper to regard 2 In Euseb., H. £., iii. 31, v. 24. 
in the second, unless some one would prefer in 


INTRODUCTION. 81 


of Domitian’s reign. That this is the meaning of the words,! and that the 
view of Wetstein,? whom Béhmer 8 follows, viz., that ἐωράθη is to be referred 
to John himself,‘ is incorrect, follows partly from the clear correspondence 
between τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἑωρακότος and ἑωράθη, and partly from the fact that 
The 
meaning of Irenaeus in presenting in contemporaneous connection the be- 


Trenaeus ὃ reports that the Apostle John lived in the time of Trajan. 


holding of the revelation and the end of Domitian’s reign, we can explain 
by the words of the perhaps contemporary Clement of Alexandria: ® ἐπειδὴ 
γὰρ τοῦ τυράννου τελευτήσαντος ἀπὸ τῆς ἸΠάτμου τῆς νήσου μετῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν *Egecov, 
x. τ᾿ a. (“ After the tyrant was dead, he came from the Island of Patmos 
to Ephesus ”’).7 
speaks is Domitian, the persecutor of Christians, who, according to the 


There can be no doubt that the tyrant of whom Clement 


representation of Eusebius, is portrayed as, in hatred of God, the successor 
of Nero.§ 


apostle’s banishment to Patmos. 


Like Origen, Eusebius 9 also reports a tradition concerning the 
The existence of such a tradition is just 
as certain as that of the tradition connected with it concerning the compo- 
sition of the Apoc. by the Apostle John; but the unhistorical character of 
the former tradition is still more clearly established. The entire tradition 
of the banishment of the apostle is of itself in the highest degree doubt- 
ful, from the fact 19 that Hegesippus says nothing of it. He has given no 
report of any martyrdom of the Apostle John. For it is inconceivable that 
Eusebius, who" from Hegesippus gives an account of the Christian martyrs 
under Domitian, should have made no mention whatever of this apostle, 
in case he had found in Hegesippus any notice of his banishment; besides, 
even the way in which Eusebius, at the close of ch. xx., mentions the 
banishment of the apostle, affords positive proof that Hegesippus knew 


nothing of 10.132 In connection with this silence of Hegesipp., is the two- 


1 Cf. already Euseb., H. £., iii. 18. 

2 N. T., ii. 746. , 

3a, as Ὁ. Εἰς 30; 

4 Eum sub exitum imperii Domitiani con- 
spectum fuisse. Joannes id, quod non scrip- 
serat, postea saltem dixisset, cum diu post 
Wetst. 
‘« That he was seen at the close of Domitian’s 
What he did not write, John, at least, 


afterwards said, since he was a survivor long 


editum librum fuerit superstes. 
reign. 


after the book was published.” 

5 L. I. c. 22; L. Ill. c. 3 (Euseb., H. £., 
iii. 23). 

6 In Euseb., iii. 23. 

7 Cf. Origen on Matt. xx. 22 βαᾳ. : ὁ δὲ Ῥωμα- 


twyv βασιλεύς, ws ἡ παράδοσις διδάσκει, κατεδί- 
noe τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην μαρτυροῦντα διὰ τὸν τῆς 
αληθείας λόγον εἰς Πάτμον τὴν νῆσον, K.T.A. 
(‘But the Roman emperor, as tradition 
teaches, banished John, bearing witness by 
the word of truth, to the island of Patmos’’). 

8 Eusebius, iii. 17: τελευτῶν τῆς Νέρωνος 
θεοεχθρίας τε καὶ θεομαχίας διάδοχον ἑαυτὸν 
κατεστήσατο (** At length established himself 
as the successor of Nero’s hatred and war with 
God’’). 

9 iii. 20; cf. c. 18. 

10 Cf. Bleek, Beitr., p.199; Vorles., Ὁ. 158 Βα. 

11 Ff, £., iii. 20. 


12 τότε δὴ οὗν Kai τὸν απόστολον ᾿Ιωάννην ἀπὸ 


82 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


fold circumstance that the tradition itself, as definitely presented since Ire- 
naeus, not only betrays by its constant growth, as well as by its discordancy, 
the uncertainty of its historical foundation; but also by its reference to 
Rey. i. 9, indicates the source whence, by the misunderstanding of those 
words of the Apoc., it has originated. Already Irenaeus says that the Apoe. 
was seen “at the close of the reign of Domitian,” notwithstanding the fact 
that the book itself clearly states that it was composed before the fall of 
Jerusalem. The end of Domitian’s reign occurred in the year 96, in which 
Nerva followed. The tradition, of which Eusebius gives a report in his 
Chronicle, therefore puts the banishment of the Apostle, and the beholding 
of the revelation, in the year 95. Clement of Alexandria? reports further, 
that, after the death of Domitian, the apostle returned to Ephesus, — under 
Nerva, as the tradition is explained in Eusebius; for just as the banish- 
ment of the apostle is placed under Domitian, of whom it is known that 
he manifested his hatred of Christians by sentences of banishment, so also 
the return of the apostle is placed under Nerva, concerning whom it is 
known that he recalled those banished by Domitian. But at the same 
time, with Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian mentions a martyrdom of the 
apostle previous to the banishment to Patmos:® “ Habes Romam ubi Apos- 
tolus Joannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in 
insulam relegatur ” (“You have Rome, where, after the Apostle John suf- 
fered nothing when plunged into boiling oil, he is banished to an island”). 
He does not need, therefore, the chronological relation between the “in 
oleum igneum demersus,” and the “in insulam relegatur,” in order to mark 
this the more accurately. But how tradition received Tertullian’s intima- 
tion, and still further elaborated it, is to be seen in Jerome, who,® with 
express reference to Tertullian, nevertheless reports what the latter did not 
say: “Refert autem Tertullianus, quod a Nerone missus in ferventis olei 
dolium purior et vegetior exiverit, etc.” (“Tertullian moreover relates, that, 
being cast by Nero into a vessel of boiling oil, he came forth purer and more 
vigorous”). Like Irenaeus,’ he puts the banishment of the apostle to Pat- 
mos, and the composition of the Apoc., under Domitian.* It cannot be said - 


τῆς κατὰ τὴν νῆσον φυγῆς τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Εφέσου 
διατριβὴν ἀπειληφέναι, ὃ τὼν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν αρχαίων 
παραδίδωσι λόγοσ. Cf.alsoc. 18. ““Τῦ was then 
also that the Apostle John returned from his 
banishment at Patmos, and took up his abode 
at Ephesus, as the account of the ancients de- 
livers it to us.” 

1 j. p. 80. 

2 Cited above. 


3 H. £., iii. 20. 

4 Euseb., eited above. 

5 De Praesert. Haeret., c. 36. 

6 Adv. Jovinian, i. 26. 

7 Cf. also Victorinus, d. 303, who, in his 
*¢ Con- 


Bibl. max. Patrum, 


Commentary on the Apoc., adds: 
demned to the mines.”’ 
Paris, T. I. p. 569. 

8 De vir. illustr., 6. 9. 


INTRODUCTION. 83 


that Tertullian, Victorinus, and Jerome contradict the tradition represented 
by Clement of Alexandria and others: they only make its growth and for- 
mation visible. Epiphanius, however, testifies to a manifestly contradictory 
tradition,! by putting the banishment to Patmos, and? the beholding of 
the revelation, in the time of the Emperor Claudius.’ If we ask, finally, 
whence the tradition of the apostle’s exile originated, we can derive the 
answer from the fact that Origen,* after stating, upon the foundation 
of tradition, that the Roman Emperor had banished the apostle to Pat- 
mos, in order to confirm this tradition appeals to Rey. i. 9, as the apos- 
tle’s own words: διδάσκει δὲ τὰ περὶ τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἑαυτοῦ ᾿Ιωάννης, μὴ λέγων τίς αὐτὸν 
κατεδίκησε, φάσκων ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει ταῦτα (“John teaches the facts concerning 
his martyrdom, not saying who sentenced him, relating in the Apoc. as fol- 
lows ᾽)) — then comes the citation — kai ἔοικε τὴν ἀποκαλύψιν ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τεθεωρηκέ- 
va (“and he seems to have beheld the Apoc. on the island”). 

The ecclesiastical tradition, in its prevalent form, contains three insepa- 
rable points: that the Apostle John is the author of the Apoc.; that he be- 
held the revelation on the Island of Patmos; and that this occurred under 
Domitian. Against all three points, even against the second,® stands the 
decisive self-witness of the Apoc., from the misunderstanding of which this 
prevalent tradition has developed. But there are also traces of a different 
tradition, and of a more correct understanding of the expressions of the 
Apoc. itself. Hence it is the right and duty of criticism to assert that 
the Apoc. was not written by the Apostle and Evangelist John ; while, at the 
same time, it can express only the probable conjecture that John, the author 
of the Apoc., must be identical with the presbyter of that name. [See 
Note XIV., p. 91.] 


SEC. VI.—THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY AND ECCLESIASTICAL 
USE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 


Full canonical authority belongs to the Apoc. only if it were written by an 
apostle, and, if because of its origin through divine inspiration it were of the 
same truly normative character as the other undoubtedly genuine writings of 
the apostle. In both respects the Apoc. appears deficient, yet not to such 
extent that it must have its place outside of the ecclesiastical canon : deutero- 
canonical authority, but nothing less, belongs to it. 

- It does not profess to be the work of an apostle, either truly or falsely ; 
but it was still written in the immediately apostolic times, before the 


1 Haer., ki. 12. traces of the uncertainty of the tradition. 
2 ¢. 33. 4 Above cited. 
3 Cf. Liicke, p. 806 sqq., who cites still other 5 Cf. on Rev. i. 9. 


84 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


destruction of Jerusalem, and that, too, by a man who, according to the 
throughout credible testimonies of the most ancient tradition, himself had 
seen and heard the Lord, and who, when he wrote his book, filled a promi- 
nent place in the Church. In the degree that the ancient Church established 
itself in the opinion that John the author of the Apoc. was identical with 
John the Apostle and Evangelist, it yielded to an error which already in 
ancient times contradicted ecclesiastical witnesses, and even at present has 
almost completely suppressed a gift of critical science bestowed upon the 
Church in ever-increasing fulness. But beneath the error lies the truth, 
necessary and sufficient for its deutero-canonical authority, that it was com- 
posed by an apostolic man. 

Yet the book would not have been received into the canon if the Church 
had not found that it was trustworthy and inspired. The claim which 
it makes in this respect, that certainly something truly prophetic and 
resting on a divine revelation is reported, has been acknowledged by the 
ancient Church as well established; and the self-witnessing Spirit, con- 
trolling the Church in theological science and Christian life, has constantly 
confirmed, in essentials, this ancient judgment, but at the same time modi- 
fied it with increasing clearness and confidence. The more the holy art of 
the exposition of Scripture has attained an insight into the structure of the 
Apoc., and the meaning of particular expressions, the less can the Church 
incur the temptation of regarding the book as a collection of predictions, 
and the less will the judgment of those who pronounce the Apocalyptic 
prophecy the most glorious fruit of apostolic endowment, and the inspiration 
of the author of the Apoc. the richest and purest work of God’s Spirit, be 
indorsed by the Church. Christian science and life will always experience 
the more certainly that God’s Spirit, who spake in the Apostle John as well 
as in the author of the Apocalypse, found in the former a nobler vessel than 
in the latter; i.e., while the Apoc. is canonical, it is, nevertheless, deutero- 
canonical. 

The proof for this lies partly in what has already been cited,? and partly 
in the exposition of details. There are especially three points to be empha- 
sized, as of the highest importance for the ecclesiastical use of the Apoc. 

1. If the explanation given below of xiv. 4 be correct, the writer presents 
a view of marriage not consistent with scriptural ethics. He is, of course, 


1 This is the inheritance of unchurchly and rechnung., Stuttg. 1840, p. 74. The author 
unscientific sects. Only a fanatic could say confidently expects, in the year 1950, the pa- 
that Bengel derived from an inner revelation rousia, for which Bengel had désignated the 
the limitation of the non-chronus (x. 7) to year 1836. 

1086 years. Cf. Priifung der apokalypt. Zeit- 2 Cf. especially sec. 2. 


INTRODUCTION. 85 


far removed from the heretical prohibition of marriage : 1 but, in his Chris- 
tian advice, he speaks differently from the Apostle Paul.2 The author of 
the Apoc. errs by regarding all sexual intercourse impure, and therefore in 
assigning those believers who abstain entirely therefrom a prominent place 
above the other saints. 

2. His conception of the one thousand years’ reign has no sufficient 
support in the analogy of Scripture. The N. T. doctrine, on the one hand, 
mentions that the general resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment, 
will occur at the parousia,? but at the same time distinguishes several acts in 
that catastrophe; viz., first, the resurrection of the righteous,* and after- 
wards the resurrection of all others. Both resurrections, together with the 
final judgment, occur ἐν τῇ παρουσία αὐτοῦ. But to the author of the Apoc. the 
distinction between the several acts in the final catastrophe appears so elabo- 
rated, that between the first and the second resurrection there lies a period 
comprised within an earthly limit (one thousand years), wherein there occurs 
an earthly rule of believers no more earthly, i.e., those who have arisen from 
the dead; and, at the end thereof, the saints, no longer earthly nor to be 
touched by any enemy, are attacked in the earthly Jerusalem by diabolic 
and human enemies, who then fall into eternal ruin. These expressions, if 
we deny their ideal, poetical nature, are self-contradictory, and opposed to 
the analogy of Scripture. But even what is at least contained in his poetical 
presentation as the very meaning of the author of the Apoc. — viz., the ad- 
mission of a diabolical activity against the kingdom of God, immediately 
before the second resurrection —extends beyond the limits of Christian 
thought given by the analogy of Scripture. 

3. That the author of the Apoc. sees the antichristian power embodied 
in the Roman Empire, is a natural limitation: this is the occasion for the 
But the 
chronological designation in xvii. 10 sq. not only has proved to be incorrect, 


error that this embodiment will be the last before the parousia.é 


but is with difficulty to be reconciled with the Lord’s warning.® It is essen- 
tially of the same nature as the expectation expressed a few years later, in 
4th Esdras, that, with the last of the Flavians, the Roman Empire will 
perish.?. This last point, which lies in the proper centre of the Apocalyptic 


11 Tim. iv. 3. 5 Cf. Tertullian, Ad Scap., 6. 2: ““ Cum toto 


2 1 Cor. vii. 38. 

3 Matt. xxv. 36 sqq. 

4 Luke xiv. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 23: οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; 
i.e., those actually belonging to Christ, and 
acknowledged by him as his own. Meyer to 


the contrary. 


Romano imperio, quosque seculum stabit, 
tamdiu enim stabit.” ‘* With the entire Roman 
empire, as long as the world will stand, for it 
will stand so long.” 

6 Acts i. 7. 


7 Cf. Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Lsrael., vii. 14. 


86 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


prophecy, alone determines already the deutero-canonical authority of the 
book, even though the two other points could be obviated. Yea, in itself it 
might be possible that the idea is that Satan, in the last moment before his 
final sinking into condemnation, undertakes yet once more an outward, as 
well as a mad, attack against the kingdom of Christ. 

The ecclesiastical use of the Apoc. can only aim at communicating to 
congregations the sure results of the learned exegesis already existing in the 
Church. False, and serving a deceptive edification,! is every ecclesiastical 
exposition and application having any contents that are exegetically in- 
correct.2 The ecclesiastical exposition should rather, on its part, be opposed 
to the widely spread, superstitious abuse of the book. 

The question for us now is not with respect to the general foundation of 
N. T. doctrine upon which the Apoc. stands, but concerning what is peculiar 
to the book. .The Apoc. is the most eloquent record of Christian hope, 
and of the fidelity, patience, and joy springing from hope. Since the Lord 
has risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, he will also return to 
awaken and judge the dead. Christian hope, bestowed with faith in the 
Lord, holds with inner necessity to his parousia. The prophecy of this 
parousia is, therefore, not only every prophecy concerning Christ,? but also 
the point towards which the preaching of Christ infallibly tends. The 
peculiar theme of the Apoc., therefore, grows from the living fulness of 
the gospel; and the Apoc. offers splendid models,‘ clearly defined, for the 
ecclesiastical explanation and application of every prophetical, fundamental 
thought. The patient hope of congregations will also be exercised and 
strengthened by the holy art with which the Apocalyptic prophet represents 
the signs and preparations for the parousia. It is incorrect to directly refer 
the particular visions of seals, trumpets, and vials, to particular events in 
secular, ecclesiastical, or governmental history; but it is correct to regard 
the entire course of temporal things as tending, according to God’s order, to 
an eternal fulfilment; and also correct are the beautiful words of Bengel,® 
that we should read the Apoc. “as candidates for eternity.” The long series 
of preparations, always beginning anew, contains in itself the corrective to 
the author’s chronological error that the Lord’s parousia was at hand. 


1 To speak with Calvin on 1 Cor. viii. 10, a (Stuttgart, 1867), is entirely useless. 
ruinosa edificatio. 8 Rev. x. 7. 

2 Hence the *‘ vow concerning the homiletical 4 Chs. ii. and iii. 
treatment of the Apoc.,” by A. F. Schmidt 5 Ordo tem., p. 326. 


INTRODUCTION. 87 


NOTES ON THE INTRODUCTION. 
L, pe 5% 


On the other hand, Davidson (Introduction to N. T., iii. 559): ‘‘ He does 
not take the title apostle, because, carrying with itself an idea of official 
authority and dignity, it was foreign to his natural modesty. Neither in his 
Gospel nor in any of his Epistles does he call himself by that high appellation. 
He does not even take the name of John in them, but reveals himself in other 
ways as their author. And, that the title servant of Jesus Christ is more appro- 
priate here than apostle, is obvious from the nature of the communication. In 
the Gospel he speaks of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved, for then he 
stood in an intimate relation to Christ as the Son of man appearing in the form 
of a servant; but in the present book Christ is announced as the glorified 
Redeemer, who should come quickly to judgment, and John is his servant, 
intrusted with the secrets of his house. Well, therefore, did it become the 
writer to forget all the honor of his office, and be abased before the Lord of 
glory. The resplendent vision of the Saviour had such an effect upon the seer, 
that he fell at the Saviour’s feet as dead; and it was, therefore, natural for him 
to be clothed with humility, and to designate himself the servant of Jesus Christ, 
the brother and companion of the faithful in tribulation.”’ 


II., p. 58. 


The inference of our author is in both cases unnecessary. Cf. Alford (Pro- 
leg., vol. iv. 6. viii. § i. 86): ‘The Apocalyptic writer is simply describing the 
heavenly city as it was shown to him. On the foundations are the names of 
the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Now, we may fairly ask, what reason can be 
given why the beloved apostle should not have related this? Was he, who with 
his brother James sought for the highest place of honor in the future kingdom, 
likely to have depreciated the apostolic dignity just because he himself was one 
of the twelve ? and, on the other hand, was he whose personal modesty was 
as notable as his apostolic zeal, likely, in relating such high honor done to the 
twelve, to insert a notice providing against the possible mistake being made 
of not counting himself among them Ὁ 


III., p. 63. 


Diversities of subjects and experience could readily account for the diversities 
of style and tone. By a similar argument, it might be shown that the Luther 
who wrote the charming letter to his little boy Hans, concerning the children’s 
heaven, could not be the same who flung defiance at the Pope in the Smalcald 
Articles. The Homeric controversy ought to furnish a warning concerning the 
dangers of pressing diversities to an extreme, where learned critics, after agree- 


88 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


ing that those writings come from a number of distinct hands, fall at once into 
irreconcilable confusion, when, on the ground of internal evidence, they en- 
deavor to assign the various parts to their several supposed authors. A1l the mild- 
ness of John in the Gospel and Epistles does not conceal the fact that he was 
one of the Boanerges (Mark iii. 17; cf. Luke ix. 54, Mark ix. 38). Even the 
fiery disposition, so tempered with mildness, as exhibited in the Gospel, could be 
employed in the service of the Redeemer, when the hour came for a change of 
contemplation from the Saviour in his humiliation, and the very beginning 
of his glorified life as exhibited on earth, to the beatific vision of unspeakable 
things in heaven. The sympathetic nature of the apostle immediately reflects 
the change in his Lord, who is no longer the Man of sorrows, but the Lion of 
the tribe of Judah, the Lamb, indeed slain, but now seen worshipped by the 
heavenly hosts. 


ΙΥ., νη. 64, 


Schultze (Zockler’s Theol. Handbuch, i. 423 sq.): ‘‘ The distinctions that 
have been made conspicuous, the Hebraizing style of the Apoc., its vivacious, 
- ardent, imaginative mode of expression, its strikingly sensitive mode of thought, 
its cabalistic numerical symbolism, —all this, so far as it is established, is ex- 
plained by the entirely different character necessarily distinguishing a prophetic- 
apocalyptic from an historical statement. . . . The distinction is similar to that 
which exists between the historical and prophetical sections in Isaiah, Daniel, 
and Zechariah.” 


V., p- 65. 


Gebhardt (The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, p. 402) finds ‘‘in John v. 25 
the first resurrection, the resurrection of the just; and in John vy. 28, 29, the 
general resurrection to judgment,”’ by regarding the resurrection from spiritual 
death ‘‘now,’’ as potentially, or germinally, the first resurrection. The one “‘is 
the completion;’’ the other, ‘‘ the beginning, or the germ.” 


ΥἹΙ., p66. 


But if such inconsistency as the author here maintains could be established, 
it would have a result more far-reaching than the simple establishment of the 
diversity of writers. If there is no real antagonism between books that are 
equally the product of divine revelation, no failure to reconcile seeming contra- 
dictions is valid in this connection as an argument. 


Πρ 0: 


1 


Davidson (Introduction, iii. 555): ‘‘ Yet, in the First Epistle of John, Christ 
is designated ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, which is nearly synonymous with ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ.᾽" 


INTRODUCTION. 89 


Alford (et supra, J 110): ‘‘I may leave it to any fair-judging reader to decide, 
whether it be not a far greater argument for identity, that the remarkable 
designation ὁ λόγος is used, than for diversity, that, on the solemn occasion 
described in the Apoc., the hitherto unheard adjunct τοῦ θεοῦ is added.’’ 


VIII., p. 67. 


Alford (Prolegomena, J 114): ‘‘ The word ἀρνίον, which designates our Lord 
twenty-nine times in the Apoc., only elsewhere occurs in John xxi. 15, not with 
reference to him. But it is remarkable that John i. 29, 36, are the only places 
where he is called by the name of a lamb; the word ἀμνός being used, in refer- 
ence, doubtless, to Isa. lili. 7 (Acts vii. 82), as in one other place, where he is 
compared toa lamb (1 Pet. i. 19). The Apocalyptic writer, as Liicke observes, 
probably chooses the diminutive, and attaches to it the epithet ἐσφαγμένον, for 
the purpose of contrast to the majesty and power which he has to predicate of 
Christ; but is it not to be taken into account, that this personal name, the 
Lamb, whether ἀμνὸς or ἀρνίον, whether with or without τοῦ θεοῦ, is common only 
to the two books ?””? Cremer (Lexicon, on ἀρνίον): “ΤᾺ the Apocalypse, it is 
the designation of Christ, and, indeed, of the exalted Christ; first, in Rev. 
v. 6, where the term, especially in the diminutive form, appears to have been 
selected, primarily, for the sake of the contrast with ver. 5. ‘The reason why 
the lion, which has overcome, presents himself as a lamb, is that he gained his 
victory in that form.”” So Gebhardt (p. 112), who adds: ‘‘ Possibly because the 
writer had once introduced Christ by it, for reasons of authorship he continues 
its use. It may be, also, that he preferred it, because he desired continually to 
bring into prominence the contrast between the appearance of Christ and his 
real importance.”’ 


LD. Bn eye 


Alford ({ 112): ‘‘ But surely this is the very thing which we might expect. 
The νικᾷν τὸν κόσμον, τὸν πονηρόν, αὐτούς, etc., — these are the details, and come 
under notice while the strife is proceeding, or when the object is of more import 
than the bare act; but when the end is spoken of, and the final and general 
victory is all that remains in view, nothing can be more natural than that he, 
who alone spoke of νικᾷν τὸν κόσμον, τὸν πονηρόν, αὐτούς, should also be the only 
one to designate the victor by ὁ νικῶν." 


>. ee Ma yp 


Yet both forms are used by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. In the Apoc. 
it occurs but three times, and in this form is better adapted to poetry. 


90 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
XL, p. 68. 


Of these expressions, the abstract 7 ἀλήθεια of the Gospel naturally is replaced 
by the concrete of the Apoc., as the very change in the character of subject 
suggests; ποιεῖν τὴν ἀληθείαν occurs but once in the Gospel, and once in the 
Epistle; εἶναι ἐκ τῆς ἀλῆθ. occurs but once in the Gospel, though twice in the 
First Epistle; and ἐκ θεοῦ γεννηθῆναι, but once in the Gospel, though frequently 
in the First Epistle. 


XIL., p. 68. 


Peculiarities of diction are to be expected, yet Davidson (p. 578 sq.) notes on 
ἡ οἰκουμένη : ** Denoting, as it appears to do, the Roman Empire in the Apoc., it 
was not suited to the topics discussed in John’s acknowledged writings. It 
occurs in the LXX. as the representation of ban; and, in consequence of 
the peculiarly Hebraistic character of the Apocalyptic diction, it is found in the 
book before us.’? On ὑπομονῇ: ‘It is not surprising to see it in the Apoc., 
because the leading object of the writer was to inculcate patient endurance of 
afflictions and persecutions, and to comfort his readers with the hope of release. 
The Gospel and Epistles of John are occupied with topics which did not require 
or admit the term,’’ etc. 


XIII, p. 80. 


The entire argument of Diisterdieck on the external evidence is unsatisfac- 
tory, and its careful study can have no other effect than to demonstrate its 
weakness. See the elaborate arguments on the other side in Alford, David- 
son, and Stuart, as also in briefer compass in Lange and Farrar (Early Years 
of Christianity, p. 405). Cf. also Gebhardt, 1-4. The whole is well summed 
up by Schultze (Zéckler’s Handbuch): ‘‘ The most ancient historical witnesses 
testify that this John was the Apostle; as Polycarp, according to Irenaeus, 
v. 20. Papias appealed, in support of his chiliasm, to the apostolical διηγῆσεις ; 
Melito of Sardis wrote an explanation; Theophilus, Apollonius, Polycrates, — 
all witnesses from Asia Minor, whither the book was sent, —acknowledge it as 
Johannean, without specially emphasizing that the apostle was the composer, 
since at that time (as Diist. concedes) this was undoubted. ‘The most important 
witness is Justin (c.7r., 81), who lived long in Asia Minor. Iren. (v.) speaks of 
the many ancient MSS. which would not have existed if the book had not an 
apostolic origin. Many references occur to it also in the Epistle to the church 
at Lyons. Contemporaneously with this, the Can. Mur. says that the apostle 
wrote letters to the seven churches; in connection, indeed, with the remark, 
‘Some of us are unwilling that they be read in church.’ For similar reasons, 
it was translated in the Peschito. But the apostolic origin was not thereby 
called into question; for, concerning this, Clemens Alex., Origen, Tertullian, 
Cyprian, Hippolytus in Ephr. Syr., speak with one voice. Previous to Euse- 


INTRODUCTION. 91 


bius, the apost. origin of the Apoc. was rejected only by Marcion, the Alogi 
(which signifies little), and the presbyter Caius; the latter only, as an anti-chiliast, 
maintaining that Cerinthus had forged it as though coming from the apostle. 
In like manner, Dionysius of Alexandria doubted it, because much in the book 
is designated as unreasonable. He holds, therefore, that since also, both in 
contents and style, it is distinguished from the Gospel, and as there were two 
Johns, it might have been written by the other John; in entire opposition, 
‘therefore, to his teacher Origen. Even apart from the obscurity concerning 
the Presbyter John, in no way cleared up, this view of Dionysius is not tradi- 
tion, but only conjecture. The Tiibingen critics are entirely right in maintain- 
ing that the apostolical origin of no book is so well attested, throughout all 
antiquity, as that of this.” 


XIV., p. 83. 


Trench (On the Epistles to the Seven Churches): ‘‘ The unprejudiced reader 
will hardly be persuaded that St. John sets himself forth here as any other than 
such a constrained dweller at Patmos; one who had been banished thither ‘ for 
the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.? Those modern 
interpreters who find in these words no reference to any such suffering for the 
truth’s sake, but only a statement on the writer’s part, that he was in the Isle 
of Patmos for the sake of preaching the word of God, or, as others, for the 
sake of receiving a communication of the word of God, refuse the obvious 
meaning of the words, — which, moreover, a comparison with vi. 9, xx. 4, seems 
to me to render imperative, — for one which, if it also may possibly lie in them, 
has nothing but this bare possibility in its favor. It is difficult not to think 
that these interpreters have been unconsciously influenced by a desire to get rid 
of the strong testimony for St. John’s authorship of the book, which lies in 
the consent of this declaration with that which early ecclesiastical history tells 
about him; namely, that for his steadfastness in the faith of Christ, he was by 
Domitian banished to Patmos, and only released at the accession of Nerva.”’ 

Gebhardt (p. 10) : “1 decide for the interpretation, justified by Rev. xx. 10, 
that the author came to Patmos as a martyr; whether as a captive, or more 
probably as one banished, which was in accordance with the practice of Rome 
in Domitian’s time, — and. which also agrees with one form of tradition, — or 
whether as a fugitive, which another tradition asserts, cannot with certainty be 
decided from the tribulation of i. 9, and the ‘leading into captivity’ of xiii. 10, 
or from the general contents of the book.”’ 

Schultze: ‘‘ With respect to time and place, the historical tradition is estab- 
lished by the book; according to Ir. v. 30, during the banishment of the apostle 
to Patmos, under Domitian: so also Clement of Alexandria, in Euseb. iii. 23; 
Origen on Matt. xx.; Jerome, Cat. 9. Most involved in controversy is the time, 
since its determination depends upon the interpretation of the entire book... - 


92 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Sure indications in the Epistles point rather to the time of Domitian. The 
state of the churches is one inwardly more thoroughly established; one is at the 
head (ἄγγελος, not = angel). The erroneous teachers (xvi. 13) are like those 
in the Epistle of Jude; only with the distinction that they have come forward, 
not only for the first time, but for a long time already have pursued their course. 
' There were actually Nicolaitanes (not a symbolical designation and translation 
of Balaam), but not in thetime of Paul. In Isa. xi. 8, Jerusalem is compared 
with Sodom, because, like the latter, it has been destroyed; and in xi. 1, it is not "ἡ 
the temple at Jerusalem, but the sanctuary at the end of time, that is meant. 

. After the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem, the last of the apostles, 
as absolutely the last pillar of the church at Jerusalem, beholds, with the eyes 
of his spirit opened by the invisible Head of the Church, the future of the 
heavenly Jerusalem, and, with this, the victory of the Church of Jesus Christ, 
and its faith over the world and all persecuting powers.”’ 

So also Davidson: ‘‘ We therefore assume A. D. 96, as the most é prctiable 
date of John’s residence in Patmos.’’ Alford: ‘‘ With every desire to search 
and prove all things, and ground faith upon things thus proved, I own I am 
quite unable to come to Liicke’s conclusions, or to those of any of the main- 
tainers of the Neronic or any of the earlier dates. The book itself, it seems to 
me, refuses the assignment of such times of writing. The evident assumption 
which it makes of long-standing and general persecution (ch. vi. 9) forbids us 
to place it in the very first persecution, and that only a partial one. The un- 
doubted transference of Jewish temple emblems to a Christian sense (ch. i. 20), 
of itself, makes us suspect those interpreters who maintain the literal sense 
when the city and temple are mentioned. The analogy of the prophecies of 
Daniel forbids us to limit to individual kings the interpretation of the symbolic 
heads of the beast. The whole character and tone of the writing precludes our 
imagining that its original reference was ever intended to be to mere local mat- 
ters of secondary import. These things being then considered, I have no hesi- 
tancy in believing, with the ancient Fathers and most competent witnesses, that 
the Apoc. was written πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς, i. 6., about the year 96 
or 97.’? Lange, Stuart, and Farrar maintain the Neronian period. Harnack, 
in Encyclopedia Britannica, suggests that ‘‘the Apoc. was written under 
Galba, but afterwards underwent revisions under Vespasian, about 75-79, and 
perhaps in Domitian’s reign of terror, 93-96.’’ 


᾿Αποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου. 


This title is according to the evidence (C. 2, al. b. Wetst.; also 8 [T., Tr., 
W. and H.]), and, since it is derived simply from Rev. i. 1, 4, 9, the oldest. 
Further statements concerning the author run: ἀποκ. ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ θεολόγου (Elz.), 
καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ — ἣν ἐν Tatum τῳ νήσῳ ἐθεάσατο --- 7 ἀποκ. τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Ιωάννου τ. θεολ. 
— ἀποκ. τοῦ ἁγίου ἐνδοξοτάτου ἀποστόλου καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ παρθένου ἠγαπημένου ἐπιστηθίου 
Ιωαννου θεολόγου (cf. Wetst., Griesb., Matthai), 


CHAPTER © 


[Ver. 1, 8*, W. and H., fwavet,.]— Ver. 2. The te after ὅσα (Elz., Ewald) is 
properly deleted already by Griesbach, after A, B,C, min. The particle does not 
generally occur in the Apoc., for xxi. 12 undoubtedly is found improperly in the 
Rec.; and even though xix. 18 after ἐλευθ. has good evidence (δ), yet it is absent 
in A, and is not found in the parallel xiii. 16. At the close of the verse it is 
added: καὶ [ὅσα ἤκουσε) καὶ ὥτινα εἰσι καὶ ἃ χρὴ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα (min. edd., Ὁ. 
Mill, Wetst.; cf. ver. 19.— Ver. 3. ὁ ἀναγινώσκων κ. οἱ ἀκούοντες. Thus the pre- 
ponderating evidence. The singular and plural also are found in both words. — 
Modification of the correct lectio media (Beng.). — The additions of τούτους to 
λόγους (C), and of ταύτης (min., Vulg.., Syr., Ar., Primas), should be here noted. 
— The reading τὸν λόγον τ. mp. in B, δὲ, Tisch. IX., also deserves consideration. — 
Ver. 4.1 The τοῦ before ὁ ὦν, «.7.4. (Elz.), in opposition to A, Ὁ, &, min., is, like 
the θεοῦ (B, min.), an attempted interpretation. In the same way, the ὃς 
(Erasm. 1) before ἦν, instead of the correct 6.— Instead of πνευμ. & ἐστιν (Elz.), 
not πνεμ. τῶν (Lach., sm. ed. according to A; so also δὲ), but πνευμ. a (B, Ὁ, al., 
Matthai, Lach., Tisch., Liicke). The variations seem to originate with Andreas 
and Arethas. — Ver. 5. The ἐκ (Elz.) is, according to A, B, Ὁ, 8, min., Vulg., 
etc., to be deleted (Griesb., Lach., Tisch. |W. and H.], etc.; cf. Col. i. 18). — 
Instead of ἀγαπήσαντι (Elz.), according to A, C, δὲ, min., with Beng., Griesb., 
Lach., Tisch., read ἀγαπῶντι. The reading λούσαντι ἡμᾶσ ἀπὸ τῶν αμαρτιῶν ἧμων 
is uncertain. Even Lach. and Tisch. have vacillated in their edd. For λούσαντι 
(Beng., Matth., Ew., Treg., De Wette, Tisch.) are B and Vulg.; but for λύσαντι 
(Mill, Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]) are A, Ὁ, &, 6, 7, 28, Primas. The ἐκ which 
suits better λύσαντι is well supported by A, Ὁ, &, 12. No decision is afforded by 
the remark of Andreas: τῷ δι ἀγάπης τῶν δέσμων τοῦ θάνατου λύσαντι ἡμᾶς καὶ τῶν τῆς 
ἁμαρτίας κηλίδων λούσαντι. Arethas says expressly, in repeating both conceptions: 


1 In reference to vv. 4-10 of the critical text pecially F. Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, 
of Lachmann and Tischendorf, cf. Liicke, Heft I. Die erasmischen Entstellungen, ett., 
Einl., p.488 sqq. For criticism of text, cf. es- Leipzig, 1861, ii. 1862. 

93 


94 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


διττογραφεῖται τοῦτο πρὸς διάφορον ἔννοιαν. So also, in ii. 2, he trifles with a dittog- 
raphy of κόπος and σκόπος, of which the latter has no value in a critical respect. 
Ewald unjustly suspects λύσαντι as the easier reading. Perhaps λούσαντι has 
entered the text, because probably with a reference to vii. 14 written on the 
margin. Andr. and Areth. place λύσαντι first, so that the Aovoavts may appear 
as an interpretation. The idea following, in the context (ver. 6), suits better 
λύσαντι. ---- The ἡμῶν after ἁμαρτ. is omitted in A, 12, 16, but stands in C, δὲ, Lach. 
large ed., Tisch. — Ver. 6. Undoubtedly in the rec. reading, ἐποίησ. ἡμᾶς βασιλεῖς 
kal, k,t.A,, the βασιλείς is incorrect, against A, C, 8, 2, 4, 6, etc., which offer 
βασιλείαν, and that, too, without the succeeding καὶ; cf. v.10. The more difficult 
reading, ἡμᾶς with βασιλείαν (Tisch., Ew. 2) is well attested by B, δὰ (cf., on the 
other hand, Lucke, p. 471), and deserves, perhaps, the preference to ἡμῖν (A, 
Syr., Ar., Lach. small ed.) and ἡμῶν (C, Lach.), because both forms could 
serve as an interpretation. At any rate, the testimony of Cod. C, here confirmed 
by the Vulg., is more important than that of A; cf. Beng., Fund. cris. Apoc., 
sec. viii. — Ver. 7. For μετὰ (A, δὰ, Vulg. edd.), C has ex? from Matt. xxiv. 30, 
etc. — Ver. 8. The discredited addition ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος is an interpretation. — 
Instead of ὁ κύριος (Elz.), the reading according to all the testimonies is κύριος 6 
θεός (Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).— Ver. 9. After ὑπομονῇ, do not 
read Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Elz.), but ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ (C, 8, Vulg., Copt., Orig., Treg., Lach., 
Tisch. [W. and H.]). Cod. A has ἐν Χριστῷ: several minusc. (according to 
Wetst.), ἐν Χριστῷ Ino. (Tisch., 1854).— Ver. 11. The addition after λεγούσης, 
᾿Εγώ εἰμι τὸ A καὶ τὸ Q, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος καὶ (Elz.), is without attestation. — 
Ver. 19. Instead of μαστοῖς (B, 8, C, Elz., Tisch. [W. and H.]), it is more proper? 
to write μαζοῖς (A, 10, 17, 18, And., Areth., Lach.). Possibly, however, the 
author of the Ap. wrote vaor, contrary to the general usage. — xpvodv; so Lach., 
Tisch., ver. 12, according to A, C, δὲ. Tisch., in 1854, had received the form 
χρυσὴν (Elz.).— Ver. 15. πεπυρωμένῃ. To this reading, the meaningless clerical 
error in A, ©, points; viz., πεπυρωμένης (originating from N, H, 1), which form 
Lach. has received. The modified πεπυρωμένοι (B, Elz., Tisch.) is without suffi- 
cient attestation. πεπυρωμένῃ, perhaps πεπυρωμένῳ (Mill, Prol., 871, 507; Beng., 
Gnom., in loco), is supported by the in camino ardenti of the Vulg. (cf. Syr.). 
The Mas. (δ, Tisch. IX.) would belong to the χαλκολ., but incorrectly; see 
- exposition. — Ver. 20. ὀὺς, Elz., Tisch.: ὧν; incorrect, and opposed to A, Ὁ, καὶ, 
8, and the usage of the Apoc. Bengel already, like Lach., Tisch. IX., has οὗς, 
ἐπὶ τῆς ὃ, μ. Elz., Tisch., after C, x. ἐν τῇ ὃ, μ. occurs (A, Lach.) because of 
ver. 16. 


Vv. 1-3. Title and commendation of the book.? But it is not the words 
᾽᾿Αποκαλ. "Inc. Xp. that declare the title; but in vv. 1, 2, the prophetic character 
and chief contents are given,® and in ver. 3 follows its corresponding com- 
mendation to Christians. 

Ver. 1. ᾿Αποκάλυψις, i.e., revelation, unveiling of things concealed as 
divine mysteries, which are presented to the prophetic view of John, and 
interpreted to him.* Heinrichs incorrectly: ἀποκ. = παρουσία or ἐπιφάνεια, VizZ., 


1 Suidas: μαζὸς κυρίως ἐπὶ avdpos — κατα- who has still more authorities. Luke xxiii. 29, 
χρηστικῶς δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ γυναικὸς, μασθὸς Kai μασ- in Cod. C, has against this usage, μαζοί. 
τὸς κυρίως ἐπὶ γυναικός, K.T.A. [* wagds, properly 2 Calov., Beng. 
of a man, but by catachresis also of a woman. 3 Prov. i. 1 sqq.; Jer. i. 1; Isa. i. 1. 


μασθὸς and μᾶστος, ofa woman”). Cf. Wetstein, 4 Cf. Introduction, sec. 2. 


CHAP. 11. : 95 
of Jesus Christ. —’Iyood Xp. in no way an objective,’ but a subjective geni- 
tive,? but not the possessive ὃ or the genitive of reception ;4 but by the context 
Jesus Christ is designated as the author and the communicating witness.5 
ἣν ἔδωκεν avt. 6 9. To the clause which has been concluded, since ἔδωκεν has ἣν 
as its object, the next clause δεῖξαι — τάχει is connected, as the infinitive δεῖξαι 
marks the purpose of the ἣν ἔδωκεν ὃ and the words ἃ δεῖ γεν. ἐν ray., are com- 
bined as the object of deifa. On the contrary, Heinr. : jv — δεῖξαι, so that 
ἔδωκεν is combined with δεῖξαι in the sense of permitied, and then this infini- 
tive is regarded as repeated with the object é dei γεν. ἐν ray. With the con- 
ception ἣν ἔδωκεν, cf. especially v. 7, and in general Acts i. 7; John i. 18, iii 
11, xii. 49, xvii. 7 sqq.; Matt. xi. 27. In conflict with the text, and in 
itself incorrect, is the remark of Calov.: “It was given to Christ according 
to his human nature;” still more, that of C. a Lap. and Tirin: “ Christ 
received the revelation from the Father in his conception and incarnation.” 7 
The revelation described in this book, Christ received from the Father, not 
in the flesh, but when exalted and glorified,’ the perpetual mediator between 
God and man,? in order to communicate it by his testimony to the prophetic 
seer,/° and thus besides to all his servants. Not so far as he is man, but so 
far as he is the Son, does the Father give to him." [See Note XV., p. 121.] 
δεῖξαι. According to the constant usage of the Apoc.,!2 and the context in 
which the expressions ἀποκάλυψις and σημαίνειν occur,!® to which δεῖξαι, k.7.2., 
are correlate, this word can be understood not only in general, as Matt. xvi. 
21, by “to point out, to give to know,” 15. but must have also the additional 
reference to the prophetic vision.4* But it does not follow hence, that by the 
τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ, the prophets are specially meant, of whom John would here 
appear as the representative.t6 The particular idea shadowed in this con- 
ception of the δεῖξαι is justified, inasmuch as it is immediately explained that 
it is through the service of the prophet beholding Christ, that future things 
are proclaimed. —r, δουλ. αὐτ., viz., not God’s 17 but Jesus Christ’s; as we find 
directly afterwards, τ. dyy. αὐτου and τ. dova, αὐτου.138 The parallel, xxii. 6, can- 
not be decisive as to the reference of the pronoun to us, as Jesus Christ is not 
mentioned there as the one who communicates. By the “servants of Jesus 
Christ,” believers in general are to be understood (cf. xxii. 9, where the 
angel calls himself the fellow-servant not only of the prophets, but also of 
those τηροῦντες τ. Aoy. τ. βιβλ. rour.). So Ebrard against Hengst. Cf. besides 


1 Heinr. through the Logos hypostatically united with — 
2 As Gal. i. 12; 2Cor. xii. 1. him.” ἃ 
3 Ebrard. 8 Cf. v. 5 sqq.; John xvii. 5. 


4 Kliefoth, who even compares it with Luke 
11. 32. 

5 Ver. 5, cf. ver. 3, xix. 10. 

6 John v. 26, vi. 52; Matt. xxvii. 34. Cf. 
Winer, p. 298 sqq. Passages like vi. 4, vii. 2, 
etc., should also be compared. Instead of the 
construction of the inf. attached to the passive 
ἐδόθη, that with iva, as, e.g., in ix. 5, appears. 

7 Cf., besides, Stern : “" The knowledge of the 
future events of the Church is imparted by 
God the Father to the man Christ Jesus, 


9 Cf. Acts ii. 33; Eph. iv. 7 sqq.; Heb. vii. 
25. 10 Cf. xix. 10. 

11 Cf. also John v. 26. 

12 Cf. iv. 1, xvii. 1, xxi. 9, xxii. 1. 

13 Cf. also the μαρτυρ Ἶησ. Xp., the ὅσα εἶδε, 
ver. 2, and besides the Aoy, τ. προφητείας, vere 
3. 

14 De Wette, Ebrard. 

15 Cf. Am. vii. 1,4; Ew. 

16 Hengstenb. Cf. Vitringa. 


17 Ebrard. 18 Cf. ii. 20. So also Klief. 


96 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


xxii. 16, according to the more correct reading. — ἃ dei γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει. The 
object of δεῖξαι, and therefore, according to the connection with the first part 
of the sentence, forming the chief contents of the αποκάλυψις as written in 
the present book. Cf. ver. 19, where there is fuller mention made, besides 
the future, also of present things. — The dei} depends upon the (not fatal- 
istic) idea of “the divine ordination which could not be frustrated.”2 The 
idea of Divine Providence is the essential presupposition of all prophecy. 
But when Klief. presses the dei in such a way as though thereby the facts of 
prophecy belonging to the sphere of human freedom were excluded, the 
reason is entirely unbiblical, and inapplicable for interposing a false inter- 
pretation derived from ecclesiastical or secular history. — ἐν τάχει designates 
neither figuratively the “certainty ” of the future,* nor the swiftness of the 
course of things, without reference to the proximity or remoteness of time 
in which they were to occur. So Ebrard, who appeals in vain to Rom. xvi. 
20 and Luke xviii. 8, since not only those passages, particularly Luke xviii. 
8 (where the subject is not the concrete future, but a constant rule), are 
dissimilar to ours, but especially because by the ἐγγύς," ver. 3, it is decided 
that the speedy coming of what is to happen is meant. When in addition 
to this idea reference is made on the one hand explicitly,® and on the other 
by the very organism and contents of the book, to the patient waiting, it 
does not follow that we dare not understand the “ quickly” in its strict 
sense,’ but that the prophet himself distinguishes the beginning of future 
things, as the beginning of the ultimate completion,’ from that distant com- 
pletion itself. The evasion that the ἐν τάχει is to be understood “ according 
to the divine method of computation,” as in 2 Pet. iii. 8,9 is contrary to the 
context.’° — With the words καὶ ἐσήμανεν, x.7.4., the construction changes. As 
the σημαίνειν corresponds in meaning to the preceding δεῖξαι, because of which 
not τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν.11 but ἁ δεῖ γεν. is to be regarded the object,!? so not ὁ θεός,13 
but the one who is to show, viz., Jesus Christ, is the subject of ἐσήμανεν. The 
δεῖξαι occurs in the way peculiar to σημαίνειν, i.e., the indication of what is 
meant by significative figures.14— ἀποστείλας belongs to dv ἀγγέλου, and that 
too without supplying “this prophecy,” 15 etc.: on the contrary, the ἀποστ. διὰ 
is absolute,!® and to be understood according to the analogy of the Hebr. 
T3 τα Thus Ew. and Ebrard. Hengstenb., whom Klief. follows, tries to 
combine the δι’ dyy. with ἐσημ., because in the N. T. the ἀποστείλας is regarded 


as requiring the accusative of the person.18 But Matt. xi. 2, according to 
the more correct reading,!9 is πέμψας διά; by the parallel passage, xxii. 6, the 


1 Dan. ii. 29; Matt. xxiv. 6. 

2 Nic. de Lyra. 

3 Cf. Am. iii. 7; Acts xv. 18. 

4 Hich. 

5 Cf, il. δ. 18. ii. 11, xxii.7, 10, 12,:20. 

6 Cf. ver. 9, xiii. 10, xiv. 12. 

7 De Wette. A confused conception, accord- 
ing to which two unlike views remain un- 
adjusted with one another. 

8 Hengstenb. Cf. C. a Lap., Tirin, Ew., 
Klief., etc. 


9 Vitr., Wolf, etc. (Beck). Cf. also Grot. 


10 Cf. in general Hinl., sec. 2. 

11 Ew., Ebrard. 

12 Hengstenb., Ew. 2, Bleek. 

13 Calov. 

14 An example, Acts xxi. 11. 
Isa. xx. 2 sqq., viii. 1 sqq. 

15 C. a Lap., Tirin, Ziill., Stern. 

16 = hinsehend. 

17 Ezek. iv. 13. 

18 Matt. ii. 16; Mark vi. 17; Acts vii. 14. Cf. 
Gen. xxxi. 4, xli. 8, etc. 

19 Lachm., Tisch. [W. and H.]. 


Cf., besides, 


CHAP. I. 2. 97 


combination of door. with dv’ ayy. is maintained, while it is also to be noticed, 
that, according to the analogy of all the examples cited by Hengstb., ἀποστέί- 
λας must stand before éonu., and that thereby the inner connection with ἐσημ. 
is in no way obscured. — διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ. Grot. incorrectly: “Learn 
hence that even when God or Christ is said to have appeared, it ought to be 
understood of the angel of God or Christ, acting in his name, and represent- 
ing his attributes.” But God and Christ appear everywhere separated from 
all angels. — A difficulty lies in the fact that it is not everywhere the same 
angel who is the interpreter, as might be expected from our position.! Cf. 
xvii. 1,7, xix. 9, xxi. 5, 9, xxii. 1, 6, and besides i. 10 sqq., iv. 1 sqq., vi. 8 544.» 
vii. 18 sqq., x. 8sqq. Hence Ewald thinks that the angel of ver. 1, and also 
mentioned in all the visions, even where not named, and where another is pre- 
sented, is to be regarded as the attendant of the Apostle John. But where- 
fore this superfluous attendance if a third one undertakes the showing and 
interpreting? That the angel? has no more to do than to transport John 
into a state of ecstasy,? is an arbitrary conception directly contrary to ver. 10 
sqq., because there John is already in the Spirit when he hears the voice of 
the angel. The explanation of De Wette,* that the angel is meant who shows 
John the chief subject of the entire revelation, the judgment upon Rome,® 
as all that precedes is only preparatory thereto, has against it, first, that also 
the important preparations are shown and interpreted to the prophet, and, 
secondly, that even in xvii. 1-xxii. 6, the same angel does not always 
appear as interpreter ; for it is difficult to regard the angel coming forth at 
xxi. 9, who continues from that time to remain with the seer, identical with 
the one speaking already in xxi. 5.6 Klief. refers to our position, and 
ascribes to the angel mentioned again in xxii. 8 the office of bringing the 
full revelation which is still uncertain to angels otherwise occupied. All 
difficulty vanishes, if, as is undoubtedly grammatical,’ the διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου 
αὐτοῦ be generically conceived 8 This appears at xxii. 6 doubly supported by 
the τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ in the mouth of the angel speaking at that place. The 
ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ thus understood can apply to all the individual angels who in 
the different visions have the office of significative declaration.!° [See Note 
XVI., p. 122.] τῷ δούλῳ αὑτοῦ Ἰωαννῃ. The seer designates himself as the 
servant of Jesus Christ in respect to his prophetic service.!! The addition of 
his own name 12 contains, according to the old prophetic custom, an attesta- 
tion of the prophecy. | 

Ver. 2. What Christ showed the seer, and what the latter beheld (ὅσα 
εἶδε), that he has testified 18 as a revelation of God through Christ (τ. Aoy. τ. 0. 
κ᾿ T. wap. Ἴης. Χρ.; cf. ver. 1) in this book, in order that it may be read and 


1 Cf. Zech. i. 9, 18, ii. 3; Dan. viii. 16, ix. 21, OGL. xvii. 1, 7,15, xix.9. 
where Gabriel appears as interpreter, which 7 Cf. Winer, p. 101. 
Ziill., without ground, fancies to be our posi- 8 Cf. Matt. xiii. 44: τῷ ayp., xviii. 17. 
tion. Cf. also Ebrard, Stern. 9 Cf. also xxii. 16. 
2 Ver. 1, xxii. 6. 10 Thus even Ewald now maintains (ii. 31) 
3 Hengstb. Cf. also Ebrard. the theory of angels relieving one another. 
4 Cf. Eich., Bleek, Stern. 11 xxii. 9. Cf. Am. iii..7; Isa. xlix. 5. 
δ xvii,.1,'7,.15. Cficxix.:9, xxi. 9; xxii: 1; 6, 12 Cf. vv. 4 and 9. 


16. 13 In writing, ver. 3. 


98 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

kept.1 According to the connection borne by the clear correspondence of 
the individual parts, the entire ver. 2 belongs to no other than the present 
book.2 But not a few expositors have referred the entire ver. 2 to the Gos- 
pel of John. Others understand τ. Aoy. τ. θ. as referring to the Gospel, and 
τ. μαρτ. Ἰησ. Xp. to the Epistles of John; and, finally, the ὅσα (re) εἶδε to the 
present revelation. To the former, then, the ede is understood in the sense 
of 1 John i. 1; as referring to the immediate eye-witness of the apostle who 
had seen the miracles, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. With 
this false view of the whole are connected particular errors; viz., that τ, μαρτ. 
‘Inc. Xp. is explained as “the testimony concerning Christ,” ὅ or when the 
correct recognition of the subjective genitive is applied to a special testi- 
mony,® and 7, doy. τ. θ. is understood’ of the hypostatic Logos. The oc- 
casion for referring ver. 2 not, or not exclusively, to the present book, lies in 
the aor. ἐμαρτυρ. and the false reading ὅσα τε cide. So formerly by Ewald: 
“who professed the Christian religion, and declared the visions which he 
saw.’ He must thus regard the éuapr. repeated by a species of zeugma, in 
order to be able to refer the ὅσα (τε) εἶδε, according to ver. 19, to the present 
revelation; while he must interpret the preceding words, as he cannot prop- 
erly refer to the Fourth Evangelist, in an entirely general sense. But the 
connection between vv. 1, 2, 3, is decisive against Ebrard, while the aor. 
ἐμαρτυρ. is very easily explained by the fact that John pictures his readers 10 
to himself.1!_ Besides, that the revelation of Jesus Christ 12. belongs to the 
Christians who are to hear it,!8 is necessary, from the fact that John by his 
testimony 15 brings it to them; this occurs in the present book,!’ whose con- 
tents he therefore charges them to hear and keep. Against Ebrard and 
Klief, who acknowledge the correct reading, ὅσω εἶδε, testimony is given 
especially by the indubitable significance of the expression in ver. 19, and 
all other passages in which John designates his reception of the vision of 
the revelation by εἶδον. But if the ὅσα εἶδε belongs to the visions here de- 
scribed, and yet cannot designate the position of the writer as an apostolic 
eye-and-ear witness,!¢ and if the te is false, then these words must form a 
suitable apposition to τ. Aoy. τ. 0. κι τ᾿ μαρτ. Ἴησ. Xp. These two expressions are, 
however, perfectly clear already from ver. 1. The entire revelation, as here 
published in writing?!” in various λόγοι τ. προφ..18 is a Adyoo τ. θεοῦ, because it 
was originally given by God;?9 it is further a μαρτυρία Ἴησ. Xp., since Christ, 
the faithful witness,” “shows” it.24_ Discrepant with this is Ewald, 11. : “ The 


1 Ver. 3. 9 «Who did not blush to publicly confess 
2 So Andr., Areth., C. a Lap., Beza, Beng., and defend the Christian religion.” 
Ziill., Bleek (Beitr., p. 192), Hofmann ( Weiss. 10 Cf. ver. 3. 
τ. Erf., ii. 308), De Wette, Liicke (Zinl., p. 510 11 ** Because, when the book was read in 
sqq.); Stern, Ewald, ii. Asia, he already had written it’’ (Beng.). 
3 Ambrosiast., Beda, Nic. de Lyra, Aretius, 12 Ver. 1. 
Grot., Wolf., Eichh., Ebrard (who at the same 13 Ver. 3. 
time refers to ‘‘ the apostolic activity ’’ of John 144 Ver.2. Cf. ver. 11. 
**in other respects ’’), Klief. 15 Ver. 8. 
4 Coccej., Vitr. Cf., besides, Hengstb. 16 Actsi. 21 sqq. Klief. 
5 N. de Lyra. 17 Cf. xxi. 5, xxii. 10. 
6 John xviii. 37. Oeder in‘Wolf. 18 Ver. 3, xxii. 18. 
7 Ribera, Ebrard. 19 ΟΕ, xxii. 6. 


δ Cfyxix.13; 20 Ver. 5. Cf. xxii. 20. 21 Ver. 1. 


CHAP. I. 3, 4-8. 99 


testimony of Jesus Christ to the truth of this word.” The ἐμαρτύρησε, accord- 
ing to its meaning, finally can be said as well of the Prophet John? as of 
the angel,? who in like manner interprets to the gazing prophet the revela- 
tion made in the visions, as the latter interprets it to Christians. Even to 
Christ, as the communicator of the revelation, is the μαρτυρεῖν to be ascribed. 

Ver. 3. Commendation of the book, which, to those who receive and keep 
it, may be a source of blessedness in the near impending and decisive time. 
— Μακάριοσ refers alone‘ to the participation in the kingdom of glory, which 
follows the conflict and tribulation of the preceding judgments, but not at 
the same time,® that the godly are to be preserved amid these judgments. — 
ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντεσ, x.7.A. These are not, in spite of the change of 
singular and plural, to be regarded the same subject;® but by the ὁ dvayw, 
the public reader, and by the οἱ ἀκούοντεσ the hearing congregations, are 
designated.’ This exposition is not “more tasteless,’’ but is far more 
natural, than that according to which ἀκούειν ὃ means, not simply “to hear,” 
but “to lend the ear of understanding.” — τ᾿ Aoy. τ. προφ. By this John names 
this book,® because what he is to publish in the same in writing (τὰ yeyp. ἐν 
αὐτῇ) is a divine revelation, of which he as a prophet is the interpreter.1°— 
By the mere hearing, of course, nothing is accomplished: hence John adds 
to what is said elsewhere only in xxii. 7: Καὶ τηροῦντεσ, x.7.2. The τηρεῖν is 
properly explained in conformity with its meaning by supplying mentally, © 
‘‘in their hearts;” 4 only, still further, that so far as what is written in the . 
book contains, directly or indirectly, the commandments of fidelity, patience, 
etc., the additional relation which prevails in the combination rap. τὰς ἐντολάς 12 
results.18 — ὁ γὰρ καιρὸσ ἐγγύς. Foundation for the commendation of the book 
which has just been expressed: the time which will bring blessedness to 
the faithful is at hand;1* blessed, therefore, he who takes to heart the 
instruction here offered.1® Notice here how in xi. 18, xxii. 10, ef. xii. 12, 14, 
the expression ὁ καιρόσ is used, i.e., the fixed, expected point of time; while 
ὁ χρόνοσ, on the other hand, is time in general, according to the conception of 
duration, and is otherwise more external and chronological.27 

Vv. 4-8 contain the epistolary dedication of the entire book to the seven 
congregations of Asia,}8 vv. 4-6, and its fundamental thought, vv. 7,8. Thus 
the reference of vv. 4+8 to the whole of the book has been correctly expressed 
in essentials by Beng.!® So, also, Klief, who, however, separates vv. 7, 8, from 
vv. 4-6, and tries to refer vv. 7-20a to the fundamental vision. The opinion 


1 Against Ebrard. 10 Cf. Introduction, sec. 2. 

2 xxii. 16. 11 Pricius, Grot., Ewald, De Wette, etc. 

3 ΟἹ, xix: 10: 12 ΟἿ᾽ χῖν. 12. 

4 According to xix. 9, xx. 6, xxii. 14. Cf. 13 Cf. in general my commentary on 1 John 
with ii. 7, 11, 17, 26, iii. 5, 12, 21 (xiv. 15). ii. 3. 

5 Hengstb., Ebrard. 14 xj. 18. 

6 Wolf, Ebrard. The comparison of ver. 7, 15 Cf. ver. 1, ἐν τάχει. 
πᾶς 060, and καὶ διτινες, is inapplicable, since 16 Cf. 1 Pet. iv. 7, 17; Rom. xiii. 11. 
in the very conception πᾶς a plurality is pre- 17 yi. 11, x. 6, xx.3. Cf. Liimemann on 1 Thess. 
supposed. Ws: 1 

7 Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstb., Bleek, 18 Mentioned in ver. 11. 
Stern [Beck]. 19 Cf. Herder, Ew., Liicke, De Wette, Itinck, 


ΒΟΥ, χχῆ. 18, 9 Idem. Ebrard. 


100 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


of Hengstenberg,! that vv. 4-6 have reference only “to the group of the 
seven epistles,” since everywhere, from i. 4 to iii. 22, the treatment is con- 
cerning the wide province of the entire Church, and there is no special refer- 
ence to the seven churches, is incorrect, for the reasons that not the contents 
of the seven epistles, but only those of the entire book, satisfy the announce- 
ment of vv. 7 and 19; and that, in a formal respect, the correspondence 
between the introduction, i. 1 sqq., and the conclusion, xxii. 6 sqq.,2 makes 
manifest as a whole all that intervenes. 

The epistolary introductory greeting, vv. 4, 5, is similar to the Pauline 
form,® but, in its contents, corresponds to the book which follows, with sig- 
nificative references to which it is filled. — John 4 writes to the seven churches 
in Asia. ᾿Ασίαϑ is Proconsular Asia, consisting of the provinces of Phrygia, 
Mysia, Caria, Lydia, Ionia, and Aolis. Ephesus δ was regarded the metrop- 
olis. In this Asia, Paul had planted the gospel; also, the First Epistle of 
Peter had its first readers there.’ — In the greeting, χάρις and εἰρήνη are com- 
bined, as in all the Pauline Epistles except 1 and 2 Timothy, where, as in 
2 John 3, ἔλεος is inserted. χάρις always stands in the foreground as the 
fundamental condition whence all salvation, all Christian χαίρειν, alone pro- 
ceeds; the εἰρήνη, the effect of divine grace, has an important significance at 
the head of the book which treats in an especial way of the conflicts of 
believers. Falsely, N. de Lyra: “grace in the present life; peace in the 
future, for there human appetite will be altogether quieted.” Rather is the 
peace which believers already have, through grace, of such nature that 
they maintain it through patience and victorious perseverance in all tribula- 
tions.§ — ἀπὸ ὁ ὦν, «.7.4. Description of the divine name 7)1,° but not 
under the cabalistic presupposition, that in that name itself, in a mystical 
way, the three tenses are indicated.1° As to the form of the expression, 
neither is the manifestly intentional combination of the nom. ὁ ὦν, «.7.4., with 
ἀπό to be impaired by the insertion of τοῦ,1} or by supplying τοῦ λεγομένου ὁ ὦν, 
k.7.A., τοῦ ὅς 6 Ov, K.T.A., τοῦ θεοῦ ὅς ὁ ὦν, x.7.4,, etc.;}* nor is the irregularity, 
that, in the absence of a necessary preterite participle in the formula ὁ m, 
the finite tense is treated as a participle, to be accounted for by the false 
conception that ὁ stood for ὅς; 18 nor, finally, is ὁ ἐρχόμενος to be taken as pre- 
cisely equivalent to ὁ ἐσόμενος 14 by an accommodation of the use of Nan, 
perhaps with an allusion to Mark x. 30, John iv. 21, v. 25, xvi. 25, 31: but, 


1 Cf., against him, Liicke, p. 420, Ebrard, and 10 Cf. yet Bengel: ‘‘ Incomparable and won- 
Rinck. derful is the composition of the name 7)77° 
3 Cf. especially xxii. 16 with i. 4. from ‘1°, he shall be, and ΤΠ, being, and 
3 Rom.i.1sqq.; 1 Cor. i.1sqq. Cf. Ew., De a δ 
Wette, Hengstb. nny, he was.’ Cf. Jerusalem Targum on 
4 Cf. ver. 2. Exod. iii. 14: “‘ Who was, is, and will be, spake 


5 ἡ ἰδίως καλουμένη ᾿Ασία (Asia properly so to the world.” [Etheridge’s translation, i. p. 
called), Ptolem., v. 2. Cf. Winer, Reallex.,in 450: **He who spake to the world, Be, and it 


loc. was; and who will speak to it, Be, and it will 
6 Cf. ver. 11. be.”] Targ. Jon. on Deut. xxxii. 39. Wetsat. 
71Pet.i.1. Cf. Introduction, sec. 3. 11 Erasmus. 
8 Cf. ver. 9, ili. 10 sqq.; Rom. v. 1 sqq:; 12 Cf. Wolf. 

John xvi. 83. 13 Schéttgen. 


9 Cf. Exod. iii. 14. LXX.: ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ oy. i4 Ewald, De Wette, Ebrard. 


CHAP. I. 4-8. 101 


in that inflexible firmness of the divine name,? there is something mysteri- 
ous ;? viz., an intimation of the immutability of the eternal God [see Note 
XVII., p. 122], who, as is shown also by the idea itself of eternity, and espe- 
cially by the ὁ épyéuevoc,? rules the destinies of his people, as well as of the 
hostile world, brings his prophecy to fulfilment, and especially holds in his 
firm hand the entire development of the judgment. Accordingly, John writes 
not ὁ ἐσόμενος, but with living reference to the fundamental thoughts of the 
book,# ὁ ἐρχόμενος, as also ver. 8,iv.8. [See Note XVIII., p. 122.] The ques- 
tion whether, by the formula ὁ ὧν κ, ὁ ἣν κ᾿ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, the triune God, or only 
God the Father, be designated, can be answered only in connection with the 
two following members of the sentence. The ἑπτὰ πνεύματα, «.7./., are, at all 
events, to be regarded not as angels, neither ὅ as “the entire body of angels ” 
(universitas angelorum), who are the ministers of our salvation,® nor’ as the 
seven archangels ὃ found again in viii. 2;° against this, the expression,?® its 
occurrence before Ἰησοῦ Xp., and the circumstance that from the ἑπτὰ πνεύματα, 
as well as from 6 ὦν, «.7.4 , and from Ἰησ. Xp., grace and peace are to proceed. 
The seven spirits are, according to iv. 5, where they appear “ before the 
throne of God,” “spirits of God” himself; according to ver. 6, they are ‘‘ the 
sent upon the whole earth,’’ and peculiar to the Lamb, as the seven eyes 
thereof. Christ “hath” the seven spirits.12_ Thus they belong to God and 
Christ himself in a way other than can be conceived of any creature. But 
they cannot be regarded mere attributes or manifestations, “the (seven 13) 
virtues of God’s providence,” 14 “the seven members, as it were, of Divine 
Providence,” 15 “ the most perfect nature of Jehovah,” 16 “ the virtues, or what 
is proclaimed, of the Supreme Divinity,” 17 — which is neither clear in itself, 
nor consistent with John’s concrete mode of view; nor can the cabalistic per- 
sonifications of the divine glory, nor the ten Sephiroth, be here thought of.18 
Essentially, by the seven spirits before the throne of God, nothing else can 
be understood than “the Spirit ” who speaks to the churches,!9 and the Spirit 
of Christ 39 who makes men prophets.2! Nevertheless, the sevenfoldness of 
this one Spirit is not to be explained, and, least of all, by an appeal to 


1 ἀπὸ ὃ ὦν, κιτιλ, Cf. ver. 5. 

2 Valla. Cf. L. Cappell., Pric., Grot., C.a 
Lap., Beng., Stern, Hengstenb., Winer, p. 66, 
etc. 

3 See below. 

4 Cf. Introduction, sec. 2. 

5 With N. de Lyra. 

6 Cf. on ver. 4: “ΒΥ the number seven, the 
whole class is understood.”’ 

7 With Areth., Ribera, Viegas, C. a Lap., 
Bossuet, Drusius, J. Mede, etc. In the year 
1460, their names (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, 
Uriel, Sealthiel, Jehudiel, and Barachiel) were 
said to have been revealed to a certain Ama- 
deus, a man eminent for holiness, miracles, 
and prophecies. Cf. C. ἃ Lap., Tir. 

8 Cf. Tob. xii. 15. 

9 Ew. ii. 

10 Οἵ, viii. 2, ἄγγελοι. 


11 Cf. already Vitr., etc. 

12 jii. 1. 

13 Alcasar enumerates the seven virtues of 
God, or endowments of Providence, thus: 
‘* Wisdom, fortitude, beneficence, justice, pa- 
tience, threatening, severity.”” This exposition 
C.a Lap. tries to combine with that received 
by most of the ancient Catholic interpreters, by 
stating that it is by means of angels that these 
virtues are exercised. 

14 Pareus. 

15 Grot. 

16 Kichh. 

17 Heinrichs. 

18 Herder. 

19 ij. 7, 11, 29. 

20 jii. 1, v. 6; cf. xix. 10. 

21 Cf. also xiv. 13, xxii. 17 


102 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Isa. xi. 2, of the assumed “seven energies” of the Spirit;! but? John’s 
type is Zech. iii. 9, iv. 6,10. The Spirit cannot be beheld in his essential 
unity as he is before God’s throne, or as sent forth into all lands; besides, 
there is need of a concrete presentation,® which occurs according to the holy 
number of seven, representing the divine perfection; thus the one Spirit, 
who, as in Zechariah, is the treasure of the Church,’ appears as seven eyes, 
lamps, or even as seven spirits. 

This view of “the seven spirits before the throne of God” gives the 
answer to the question whether ὁ ὧν κ. ὁ ἣν x. ὁ épy. be God the Father,® or 
the triune God ® The question itself is properly more of a dogmatical than 
of an exegetical character, because nothing is more distant from John than 
the dogmatic reflection whence that question originates. Yet the answer 
must be given, on the one hand, that the expression ὁ ὦν, «.7.4., a8 a descrip- 
tion of the name ΠῚ", designates the God who in ver. 1 is called ὁ θεός, 
and in like manner is represented to be distinct from Christ, as vv. 4, 5, 
treat of the seven spirits and of Christ; and, on the other, that the threeness 
of “him who is,” etc., of the seven spirits, and of Jesus Christ, not only 
has “an analogy with the Trinity,” 8 but actually includes, in itself and in 
the doctrinal connection of the entire book,® the fundamental idea of the 
Trinity, which, if developed and dogmatically expressed, yields the result 
that the designation of the divine nature (ὁ ὦν, «.7.4.) is confined to the 
representation of the Father. [See Note XIX., p. 122.] 

Ver. 5. As from the seven spirits of God, as the Spirit of God and of 
the Lamb beheld in living concretion, comforting, warning, strengthening 
believers, but judging the world, grace and peace are wished ; so also, finally 
(vv. 5, 6), from Jesus Christ, since he is ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς, x.7.A. The con- 
struction with the genitive is not abandoned in order to indicate “ the im- 
mutability of the testimony,” 19 neither is it aided by supplying ὅς ἐστίν : 1} 
but the importance of the ideas breaks through the limitations of regular 
form; the abrupt mode of speech makes prominent the intense independence 
of all three predicates. |Compare the energetic change of construction in 
the sentences immediately following. All three predicates of Jesus Christ 
stand in pragmatic connection with the contents of the entire ἀποκάλυψις 
communicated through him, but not}? in correspondence with the three 
themes of the ascription of praise, τ. ἀγαπῶντι, λύσαντι, and ἐποίησεν ju, βασιλ., 
x.r.2. Inconsistent with the conception and reference of the three predi- 
cates, is also the opinion that in them Christ “is characterized according to 
the consecutive series of his works, and therefore according to his threefold 
office.” 18— Christ exalted to his majesty is first ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός, 1.e., the trust- 
worthy 14 witness, and not because in his earthly life he testified, in general, 


1 Andreas; cf. Victorin., Primas., Beda, 7 Cf. especially ver. 8. 8 De Wette. 
Revius, Zeger, Wolf, etc. 9 Cf. iii. 1, ν. 6, 12 sqq. 

2 Cf. Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebr. 10 Grot., Stern. 

3 Cf. Matt. iii. 16; Acts ii. 2 sqq. 11 Er. Schmid, Schottg. 

4 Hengstenb.; cf. with Zech. iv. 6, also John 12 According to Ebrard. 
Xvi. 8. 18 Ebrard. Cf. also Coccej., Vitr., Calov. 

5 Alcasar, Calov., Hengstenb., Ebrard. 14 Because true. Cf. iii. 14, xix. 11, xxi. 5, 


6 Ribera, C. a Lap. xxii. 6. 


CHAP. I. 5. 103 


to the divine truth, and maintained it even unto death ; 2 nor because what 
he has threatened and promised in the flesh ὃ he will execute: but also, not 
alone because of the attestation to apocalyptic truth,* which reference, of 
course, must not be omitted, but absolutely as the very one through whom 
each and every ¢ divine revelation occurs, who communicates predictions not 
oily to the p: prophets | in general,® as at present to the writer of the Apoc.,® 
but also testifies to the truth’ by reproving, admonishing, and comforting the 
churches. That, just on this account, Christ was the faithful witness in the 
flesh, is self-evident, but lies here beyond the sphere of the visions. — 6 πρωτό- 
τοκος τῶν νεκρῶν. ‘This figurative expression 8 agrees, as to its essential mean- 
ing, with the figure, ἀπαρχὴ τῶν. κεκοιμημένων, 1 Cor. xv. 20.9 The figure is 
obliterated if πρωτότοκος,19 without any thing further, be received like ἀρχῆ, 
the first.1!_ Grot. already justly remarks, “The resurrection is a birth.” 13 
Yet the view according to which the resurrection to a new life 18 appears as a 
birth is to be maintained in its simplicity, and not, as with Ebrard, to be 
further portrayed. But, since Christ is the πρωτότ. τ, vexp., he may represent 
himself as in ver. 18, 11. 8; and that applies to him as returning, which 
ver. 7 represents as the fundamental thought of the book. [See Note XX., 
p- 123.] καὶ ὃ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς. This, Christ —to whom, as the 
Messiah, and that too as one dead and risen again, the dominion over all 
things belongs 1° — will prove himself to be, in the judgment, at his advent.16 
If the three predicates of Christ just mentioned are presented without 
forinal opposition, because in this way the unconditional objectivity of the 


\ ideas is the more forcibly marked, the subjective references in the following 
expressions, τ. ἀγαπ. ἡμᾶς, Avo. ἡμας ex τ. ἁμαρτ, ἡμῶν, ἐποιησ. ἡμῶν βασιλ., require 
| that they be made in the form of ἃ doxology. The new clause, τῷ ἀγαπῶντι 


᾿ἦμ., looks from the very beginning to the close (dur) ἡ δόξα, κ.τ.}.; the ἀντῷ 


restoring the original form of the sentence after it had been interrupted, 


_ after a Hebraistic manner, by the finite tense, καὶ ἐποίησεν. 1 ---- The present, τ. 


᾿ἀγαπῶντι, is neither to be accounted for by the false reading ἀγαπήσαντι, nor to 
\be explained in the sense of an imperfect participle; but, on the contr ary, 


\ihe certainty that Christ continues to love his people is just as significant 


1 Cf. John iii. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 18; Andr., 
Areth., Par., Coccej., Vitr., Grot., Calov., 
Eichh., Ziill. 

2 Ebrard. 

8 Ewald compares John vii. 7; Hengstenb., in 
addition to John iii. 11; also John xvi. 33, etc. 

4 Ver. 2, De Wette; cf. Heinr., Ew. ii 

5 xix. 10. 

6 Ver. 2, xxii. 20, 16. 

7 iii. 14. 

8 Cf. Col. i. 18, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τ. vexp. 

9 Where also the partitive genitive denotes 
the mass to which Christ belongs. 

10 Cf. also Col. i. 15, where Christ as the first- 
born is distinguished from that created by him. 

11 Hengstenb. 

12 Cf. also Ew. 

13 Cf. the ἔζησεν, ii. 8. 


14 That the expression ὠδῖνες, Acts ii. 24, 
properly has not been derived by Luke from 
the LXX. of Ps. xviii. 5 (cf. ver. 6), but that 
Peter actually spake of the ‘* bands” of death, 
is inferred from the fact that it is said that 
Christ could not have been held by it, viz., by 
death. That “the birth-pangs of death” could 
not have held Christ, that Christ forced his 
way through ‘‘these birth-pangs of death,’’ 
and therefore is to be understood as the first 
who “‘ opened the womb,” is the inference of 
Ebrard. 

15 Ps. ii.; cf. Acts xiii. 33; Ps. cx., Ixxii. 10 
sqq., Ixxxix. 28; Isa. lii. 13 sqq.; Phil. ii. 9; 
Matt. xxviii. 18. 

16 Cf. vi. 15, xvii. 14, xix. 16. 

17 De Wette, etc. 


104 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


in the connection of the book as that of his being the faithful witness 1 
The bride is comforted, and rejoices in the coming of Him whom she loves.? 
— καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτ. ἡμ., k.7.A, The loosing which Christ has accom- 
plished by means of his blood 4 [see Note XXI., p. 124] represents our sins 
as a power enchaining us.> For the thought, cf. the similar conception of 
ἀγοράζειν, ν. 9.6 The reading λούσαντι Ἰ yields, according to another figure,’ 
essentially the same idea, in both of which® the forgiveness of sins and 
liberation from their power !° are comprised. Yet, even in an exegetical 
respect, the reading λύσαντι is preferable. Asin v. 9 the allied idea of the 
ἀγοράζειν, So also here the λύσαντι ju. is followed by the declaration which, in 
most forcible opposition to the bondage of the sins from which we are de- 
livered, ascribes to us a royal dominion and holy priesthood with God. 

Ver. 6. In the reading ἡμῶν βασιλείαν, as well as the variation ἥμιν, the 
βασιλεία designated is undoubtedly the royal sovereignty of believers,!! to 
whom, therefore, v. 10, a βασιλεύειν is directly ascribed.12 Were the reading 
ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, Which is certainly that of v. 10, to be received here, upon 
grammatical considerations, the words could not signify that the redeemed 
are a “kingdom” in the sense of “a people of kings,” as ἱεράτευμα 13 is “a 
people of priests,” 14 or “a royal power opposed to the world.” (if this 
idea is to be reached, we must read either ἡμῖν, or,!® in conflict with all the 
testimonies, with the Rec., ἡμᾶς βασιλεῖς); but only that the redeemed are 
- the “ kingdom ” of God, the subjects, and, of eourse, also the blessed sharers 
in God’s kingdom." ---- ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ. These words stand in 
apposition to ἡμῶν βασιλείαν. The formal inconsequence that the ἱερεῖς is in 
apposition with a ἡμᾶς supplied from the ἡμῶν βασιλείαν, 8 each of the two 
points shows with especial force and independence. — The αὐτοῦ belongs not 
only to the zarpi,!® but to the entire conception τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί, as also Rom. 
xv. 6.7 In the first case, the article must be repeated before the πατρί. But, 
on the other hand, John could not write as Ebrard, according to the analogy 
of vi. 11, ix. 21, John ii. 12, expects, τῷ θεῷ αὐτοῦ καὶ τ. πατρὶ ait., because thus 
two different subjects would be presented; viz., first, the God of Jesus 
Christ, and, secondly, the Father of Jesus Christ.21 — “ Priests unto God’? 2 
are the redeemed of Christ, and invested with the kingdom, in no way for 
the reason that they help to complete the sufferings of Christ; ?? for, while 
the suffering of believers must be considered the suffering of witnesses or 


1 Cf. iii. 19. 10 Of. the καθαρίζειν of 1 John i. 7. 
2 xxii. 17; cf. also Rom. viii. 37 sqq. 11 Ver. 9, xvii.12, 17, 18; Luke i. 33, xix.15; 
3 In regard to the meaning of the aor. cf. also Dan. vii. 22, 27. 
λύσαντι and ἐποίησεν, cf. v.10; Heb. vii. 27; 12 See Exposition, in loco. 
Gal. ii. 20. 15 Exod xix. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 9. 
4 Cf., concerning this meaning of the ἐν, vi. 8; 14 Hengstenb. 
Winer, p. 363. 15 Klief. 
5 xx. 7, where also the ἐκ, ix. 14, 15, xx. 3; 16 Keil on Exod. xix. 6. 
cf. Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18. 17 De Wette, Ebrard. 
9.1 Cori svi. 20) "Gal. ai. 191 Acts; xxs \28; TSO Evade 
1 Pet. i. 18; Eph. i. 7; Matt. xx. 18. 19 De Wette, Ebrard. 
7 Cf. Critical Notes. 20 Cf. Gal.i.4; 1 Thess. iii. 7; Winer, p. 121. 
8 Ps. li. 4; Isa. i. 16, 18; Rev. vii. 14. 21 Cf., in general, John xx. 17. 


9 Cf., on the other hand, De Wette. 22 Col. i. 24; Ebrard. 


& 


CHAP. I. 7, 8. 105 


martyrs, just in this is the idea of the suffering of a priest, which belongs 
absolutely only to one High Priest, surrendered. But the priesthood of all 
the redeemed ? lies in this, that they come immediately to God, offer to him 
their prayers, and further give themselves peculiarly to him in holy obedi- 
ence and spiritual service. A similar idea occurs, when, in xxi. 22, the 
new Jerusalem appears without a temple. [See Note XXII., p.124.] αὐτῷ; 
Viz., τῷ αγαπῶντι ἡμάς, x.7.4., therefore Jesus Christ. 
understood.+ 

Vv. 7, 8. Just as Amos (i. 2), by a forcible expression, concentrates the 
chief contents of his book at the very head; so here the writer of the Apoc., 
who in this also follows the mode of the ancient prophets, by adding to the 
passage ver. 7, containing the sum of his entire prophecy,® the full authority 
of the name of God, of whose message he is the prophet, ver. 8.5 Klief. 
incorrectly denies that the parousia is the proper theme of the Apocalyptic 
prophecy, and therefore combines vv. 7,8, not with vv. 4-6, but with ver. 
9 5646. 

Already the ἰδοῦ is an indication that something important is presented.? 
- ἔρχεται. He (Christ) cometh;* this is the theme of the Apoc.,® which is 
expressed here not in indefinite generality, but directly afterwards its chief 
points, as they are further unfolded in the book, are stated. For the coming 
of the personal Christ is a coming to judgment, and indeed not only for hos- 
tile Jews (οἵτιτες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν), but also for the heathen (καὶ xow. πᾶσαι ai 
φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς). Christ cometh “with the clouds.” The wera! designates the 
coming one as accompanied by clouds; whether we are to regard these as 
beneath !? or about him,!3 is not expressed. The épy. μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν does not 
form an apposition to “arising out of the sea,” and is not simply a descend- 
ing from heaven,}4 for the conception, xiii. 1, is too unique to correspond to 
the stereotyped idea in our passage ; 15 also, the μετὰ τ. ved. is too significant for 
“down from heaven.” But, according to the O. T. mode of representation, 
God coming to judgment appears surrounded by clouds.1® [See Note XXIII., 
p- 124.] When he comes, absolutely all (πᾶς ὀφθαλμός) will see him; not only 
his believers, who have remained steadfast to him, and whom he, their Judge, 
their Deliverer, will introduce into his glory,’ but also —as is expressly de- 
clared by the words οἵτινες --- τῆς γῆς, ---- unbelievers. Among these, the first to 
be especially mentioned are καὶ οἵτινες αὐτον ἐξεκέντησαν, 1.6., the Jews. Volk- 
mar and Hilgenf.}§ incorrectly think here chiefly of the heathen, since heathen 


To ἡ δόξα, k.7.4., ἐστίν is 


11 Dan. vii. 13; Mark xiv: 62. 

12 Matt. xxvi. 64. 

13 Cf. Ps. xevii. 2. 

14 Ebrard. 

15 Among the later Jews, the Messiah is ex- 
pressly called ‘the cloud-man’’ (Wolken- 
mann) “aay, or 533 1; cf. Ewald. 


1 Heb. vii. 27, x. 14. 

2 Cf. Dan. vii. 18, 27, where to the ἁγίοις τοῦ 
ὑψίστου is ascribed the βασιλεία. 

3 Cf. Rom. xii. 1. 

De Wette, Hengstenb. Cf. 1 Pet. iv. 11. 

5 Cf. Joel iv. 16. 


6 Cf., especially, Am. iv. 13. 


7 Cf. xvi. 15, where, in like manner, the same 
fundamental thought of the book suddenly 
enters with surprising force. 

8 Cf. concerning the present, Winer, p. 249. 

9 Introduction, sec. 2. 

10 Matt. xvi. 27. 


16 Ps. xcvii. 2, xviii. 10 sqq.; Nah.i.3; Grot., 
Hengstb.; cf. Knobel, Prophetismus d. Hebr., 
i. p. 361 sqq. 

17 Cla xix. 1 68... π᾿. 11 '8qq-5 xxi: Laqd.; 
Matt. xxv. 31 sqq; 1 Thess. iv. 16 sqq. 

18 Introduction, p. 12. 


106 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


hands directed the plunge of the lance into the Crucified. [Note XXIV., 
p- 124.] But decisive against this is not only the relation to the subject, but. 
also the expression, κ. κοί. ---- πᾶς αἱ φυλ. τ. γῆς. Here, as in John xix. 37, the 
prophecy, Zech. xii. 10, forms the foundation, where the words 1)?3-WS DS 
ὃς 10°37) are rendered by the LXX., καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρὸς μὲ, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρ- 
xnoavro. According to Zechariah, the converted people are to look towards 
their God, whom they had wounded by their infidelity and disobedience, 
i.e., as the LXX. correctly explain, had despised; but in this passage the 
“seeing,” i.e., the actual beholding of the coming Christ, is understood in 
the sense that then, at the commencement of the judgment, repentance is 
no longer possible, and only terror remains concerning sins that have then 
undoubtedly occurred. Against the pragmatism of this passage, Ebrard 
wishes here to find the meaning: “ When he cometh, Israel shall be con- 
verted, and the nations of the earth shall certainly lament,? as those who 
have fallen away.” Bengel falls into the same error, when he remarks of 
the κόψονται in the second member, “ Undoubtedly with hostile, or even, on 
the part of some, with penitential, terror.” How John xix. 387 is in this 
respect related to this passage, is not manifest; since there only the fact of 
the εἐεκέντησαν, i.e., the thrust of the lance, is stated. The difference between 
John xix. 37 and this lies in the fact that there (εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντ.) the special 
point of the thrust of the lance is emphasized; while here (αὐτὸν ééexévr.) the 
subject is the death — ‘‘the slaying” %— in general, as the most manifest 
proof of hostile unbelief. As to ἐκκεντεῖν in this sense, cf. Num. xxii. 29, 
Judg. ix. 54, 2 Mace. xii. 6. Partly because of this difference, and also partly 
because Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion translate the word p71, Zech. 
xii. 10, by éxxevretv,t we dare not infer the identity of the Evangelist and the 
writer of the Apoc. — καὶ κόψονται ἐπ’ αὐτὸν πᾶσαι ai φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς. Although this 
expression may comprise also the Jews, yet, according to the connection, 
it is to be limited to the anti-theocratic and antichristian heathen. The 
κόψονται ® obtains, by the construction with éz and the acc.,® a graphic clear- 
ness, such as is peculiar to the entire style of the writer of the Apoc., by 
representing the mourning, not according to its inner reason (ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ), but 
according to its external direction, — towards the coming Judge.’ — Not only 
by the twofold assurance in both Greek and Hebrew,® at the close of ver. 7, 
but still more completely and solemnly by the entire ver. 8,9 is the main 
sentence, ver. 7, sealed. This verse contains a significant unfolding of the 
old prophetic formula 717. ON). For the Eternal, who is at the same time 
Lord of all, will execute his prophecy, ver. 7.°— The formula τὸ ἀλφὰ καὶ 
τὸ ὦ 11 is, according to its meaning,!? correctly explained by the gloss ἀρχὴ 


1 Zech. xii. 10. 2 Matt. xxiv. 30. 6 Cf. xviii. 9. 
3 Cf. vv. 9, 12, etc. 7 Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 3; Matt. xxvii. 42, 48. See, 
4 But in connection with the circumstance also, De Wette. 
that the LXX. at other places translate the word 8 Erasmus, De Wette. 
pt by ἐκκεντεὶν, not by κατορχεῖσθαι, we must ® Cf. exposition of vv. 7, 8. 
not infer, with Ewald, that Zech. xii. 10 also 10 Observe here again, as in ver. 4, the rela- 
may have been originally, with the LXX., ἐξε- tion of the name ὁ ἐρχόμενος. 
κέντησαν. 11 xxi, 6. 


5 Cf. Zech. xii. 10; Matt. xxiv. 30. 12 Cf. i. 17, 1.3, xxii. 13. 


CHAP. I. 9. 107 


κι τέλος.1 --- ὁ παντοκράτωρ. Cf. Am. iv. 13, where the LXX. have it for 
MI, 

i. 9-iii. 22. John receives in a vision the command from Christ to write 
down the revelations communicated to him, and to send them to the seven 
churches of Asia (i. 9-20). This is to be done in such a way that to each 
one of these churches, in a special letter (ii. 1-iii. 22), the contents of the 
revelation are to be applied for encouragement, consolation, and warning. 

Vv. 9-20. As the ancient prophets report their call,? in order to prove the 
divine authority of their declarations,’ so John presents, in the beginning, 
the commission given him by Christ himself, in order that the entire book 
may be acknowledged as that which it directly professes itself to be in ver. 1. 

Ver. 9. Ἐγὼ ᾿Ιωάννης. The name as in ver. 3. [See Notes on Introduc- 
tion, pp. -] The combination of the ἐγώ with the name‘ is after the 
manner of Daniel. In the same way, the authors of 4 Ezra ® and the Book 
of Enoch? conform to Daniel’s model. The formula must not be regarded 
as determined by the intention of the composer to distinguish himself from 
the speaker in ver. 8.8—John not only calls himself the brother of the 
readers, in the sense justified by the communicative style of vv. 5, 6,9 but 
especially emphasizes what is supposed in the relation of a brother: καὶ 
συγκοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει, x.7.A. The inner combination of this idea with 
ὁ ἀδελρὸς ὑμῶν is to be inferred from the fact of the non-repetition of the 
article. The ἕν 19 designates the θλῖψις, etc., as the sphere in which the fellow- 
ship 11 occurs, in distinction from the objective conception of the customary 
genitive. So, too, the ἐν stands in the ἐν Ἰησοῦ, belonging to all three terms, 
θλιψ., βασιλ., and ὑπομ., whereby the Lord and Saviour represents himself as 
the personal ground of the tribulation and kingdom and patience of all those 
to whom vv. 5 and 6 pertain. A comparison has here been incorrectly made 
with the dissimilar ideas of Col. i. 24, 2 Cor. i. 15.12 Cf., on the other hand, 
Phil. ii. 1, παράκλησις ἕν Χριστῷ. ---- The θλῖψις (ἐν ’Ιησοῦ) is the affliction, which, 
“for the name of Christ,” 14 has been infallibly prepared for believers, on the 
part of the hating and persecuting world. But, as this suffering, so also does 
the royal glory possessed already by believers, and yet hoped for 18 in its full 
manifestation, lie “in Jesus” himself. Hence, e.g., iii. 21, the promise in 
the mouth of Christ. — Finally John adds yet the ὑπομονῆ (ἐν ’Inood), as the 
item ordinarily mediating between the two preceding," which, therefore, is 
an important subject of the prophetic exhortation.18 There is no hendiadys, 
either in the first or the last of the two conceptions.9 


1 Cf. Jalkut Rub., fol. 147: ‘* Adam trans- 
gressed the whole law, from §& to Yj,” in 
Wolf.; cf. also Wetst. 

2 Cf. Jer. i.; Isa. vi.; Ezek. i.-iii. 

8 Cf. Am. vii. 14 sqq.; Exod. iii. 

4 xxii. 8. 

6 Dan. vii.15, vit. 1; ix: 2, x. 9. xiiz δ. 


xviii. 4; Phil. i. 7; Rom. xi.\17; 1 Cor. ix. 23; 
also, Eph. iii. 6. 

12 De Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 

13 ij. 9, 10, vii. 14. 

14 Matt. xxiv. 9; cf, xiii. 21. 

15 John xvi. 33; Acts xiv. 22. 

16 Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 12; Rom. viii. 17; Acts xiv. 


6 11. 42. τι δ xxiv. ἢν xcii..3, cv..15; 

8 Ewald. 9® Cf. xix. 10. 

10 Cf. Matt. xxiii. 30; Gal. vi.6; Acts viii. 21, 
xxvi. 18. 

11 Respecting the expression συγκοιν., cf. 


22. . 

17 So that the juxtaposition of these terms is 
not entirely without order (De Wette). 

18 Cf. ii. 2, 3, iii. 10, xiii. 10, xiv. 12. 

19 Against Heinr. 


108 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

In connection with the self-designation of the composer as ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν, 
the entire expression καὶ ovyxow.—’Ino., whose fundamental universality is 
marked by the three terms θλῖψις, Garcia, and ὑπομονὴ, cannot be decisive as 
to the words ἐγενόμην --- μαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ having definite reference to the θλῖψις 
just mentioned, and therefore being understood necessarily of the banishment 
of John, whether of the apostle! or another John.?, The incorrect empha- 
sizing and specializing of the θλῖψις likewise leads N. de Lyra to think of 
the legend according to which the apostle was cast into seething oil. As 
most plausible for the traditional explanation, the usage of the dia, vi. 9, 
xx..4, is cited: but in these passages we find the determinative expressions 
ἐσφραγμ., πεπελεκισμ.; and a comparison may also be made with Matt. xiii. 21, 
xxiv. 9; John xv. 21. But the exposition proposed by Bleek, Liicke, and 
De Wette, according to which ‘the dia indicates that John was in Patmos 
because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus,—i.e., to receive 
the same [see Notes on Introduction, p. 91], —is decided to be correct by: 
(1) The in any case near parallelism of vv. 1, 2. (2) The circumstance 
that ἡ μαρτυρία ᾿Ιησοῦ, according to the usage of the composer of the Apoc., 
cannot in any way be ‘‘the testimony concerning Jesus:”® for what Wolf 
remarks on 1, 2, is entirely wrong; viz., “ As often as the word μαρτυρία oc- 
curs in the Apoc., so often does it signify the testimony concerning Christ 
given by others.” But the genitive with μαρτυρία is always subjective; so 
that the expression papr. ᾿Ιησοῦ signifies regularly 4 that given by Jesus (the 
faithful witness, ver. 5), and the papr. αὐτῶν the testimony given by the αὐτοί, 
in which latter case the contents of the μαρτυρία are synonymous. ‘This firm 
rule, vi. 9® by no means invalidates. The testimony proceeding from Jesus, 
because of which John was in Patmos,’ — according to Volkmar, only an 
item in the account, —is, thus, that which he was to receive® in the Spirit.9 
Thus, even in an exegetical way, the opinion 19 is incorrect, that John had 
gone to Patmos in order to preach, which even in itself would be highly 
improbable on account of the character of the small, sparsely inhabited 
island. John himself intimates that the island is insignificant, by writing 
ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ καλουμένῃ. Patmos, to-day called Patino or Palmosa, belongs to 
the Sporades. Tournefort !2 found on it only a small town; there is pointed 
out, besides a sarcophagus with John’s remains, the grotto in which the 
apostle is said to have received the Apoc.!® By the aorist form éyevéuqv, it 
is clearly implied, that when John wrote the Revelation he was no longer on 
Patmos. To make the command (ver. 11) conflict with this conception,’® is 


1 Hengstenb., Ebrard, Hilgenf.; Introduc- 
tion, p. 409; Gebhardt, p. 11, etc. 

2 Ewald. 

8 Ebrard, ete. 

259-12 Χ i, xix, ΤΟ σαν: 

Joos (fo. Ghig ΠΣ 

6 See on passage. 

7 Klief., who is compelled to understand the 
apt. Inc. in the above sense, but in other 
respects rejects the corresponding opposition 
as ‘‘ violence occasioned by critical interests,”’ 
“advances the idea that John was conveyed to 


Patmos ‘ because, by his testimony, he was re- 
sponsible for God’s saving word, and the testi- 
mony concerning the same, given by Jesus.” 

δύ νυ 5 2: 

9 Cf. immediately afterwards, ver. 10. 

10 Hartwig, Apol. d. Offenb., ii. 55. 

11 Beng., Heinr., Hengstenb. 

12 In Wolf. 

13 Cf., also, Winer, Reallex., in loco. 

14 Cf. ver. 10. 

15 Hwald, etc. 

16 Kbrard. 


CHAP. I. 10. 109 


only to say,! that, “as the revelation came to an end, the book also was 
finished.” Regard for the readers? cannot explain® the aor. ἐγενόμην, be- 
cause in this word there is no reference to writing. 

Ver. 10. With ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι we dare not immediately combine ἐν τῇ 
κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, in the sense: “1 saw in the Spirit the day of judgment,” i.e., 
“TI foresaw it represented.” * In contradiction with this ® are, the fact that 
the presentation of γίνεσθαι ἐν πνεύματι is in itself complete, the expression 
ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα, and the circumstance that the contents of the book are not 
limited to the day of judgment. The ἐν πνεύματι designates essentially 
nothing else than the ἐν ἐκστάσει of Acts xxii. 18, xi. 5. Yet by πνεῦμα, the 
Divine Spirit, in his objectivity,’ cannot be understood, but the πνεῦμα must 
by all means be interpreted subjectively.!° The antithesis is yi. ἐν éavrg," or, 
according to 1 Cor. xiv. 14 sqq., ἐν τῷ voi.12 The ἐν πνεύματι is understood in 
one way, Rom. viii. 9, and in another also in Matt. xxii. 43; Mark xii. 36, 
where the subjective πνεῦμα is designated as sanctified or prophetically illu- 
mined by the objective Spirit of God; while in the present passage, as well 
as in iv. 2, and especially xxi. 10, the reference to the efficacy of the Holy 
Ghost is in no way removed, but by πνεῦμα is understood only the higher, 
spiritual nature of man,}* in virtue of which he is capable of receiving a reve- 
lation, having visions, and being ἐν ἐκστάσει. ---- The κυριακὴ ἡμέρα 13 is the first 
day of the week, the Sunday, which was celebrated as the day of the Lord’s 
resurrection.!6 On the holy day, John was especially well prepared to receive 
the divine revelation. [See Note XXV., p. 125.] But there is no foundation 
for understanding the κυριακὴ qu. of an Easter Day,!® or for assigning to that 
Sunday!’ the fulfilment of the expectation, attested by Jerome, that Christ 
will return on Easter Day.18— ὁπίσω μου refers not to the fact that a revelation 
of the invisible God is presented,!9 nor that John must first be prepared by 
hearing for the impending sight, as no one can see God without dying.*° 
Against both these views, is the fact that John not only actually sees Christ, 


14 CE. 1:Cor, xis 20s 
15 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7; ef. Dionys. Cor. 


1 If we receive with Hengstenb. (p. 116) 
what is inconceivable and irreconcilable with 


ver. 10: ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι. 

2 As in ἐμαρτύρησε, ver. 2. 

3 Hengstenb., to whom Liicke (p. 814) con- 
cedes too much. 

4 Wetst.; cf., also, V. ἃ. Honert, Dissert. 
Apocalypt , p. ΤΊ sqq.; Winer, p. 173; Ziill. 

5 Cf., also, De Wette, Hengstenb. 

© Cha iv. 2, Exile 

7 Cf., especially, xxi. 10. 

8 Cf, LXX., Judg. xi. 29: ἐγένετο ἐπὶ ᾿Ιεφθάε 
πνεῦμα κυρ. (Num. xxiv. 2). 

® As Grotius, who compares Mark i. 23, v. 5; 
and Ebrard, who compares Acts iy. 8 sqq.; and 
also Klief.,— say more clearly than many 
other expositors who appear to be of the same 
opinion. 

10 Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 2, 14, 31. 

11 Acts xii. 11. 

12 Cf., also, 2 Cor. xii. 2 sqq. 

13 Cf. Rom. viii. 16. 


in Euseb., H. Z., iv. 23: τήν --- κυριακὴν ἁγίαν 
ἡμέραν διάγομεν (** We keep the holy Lord’s 
day’’). Barnabas, Zp.,c. 15: ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν 
τὴν ὀγδόην εἰς εὐφροσύνην, ἐν ἣ καὶ ὃ Ἰησοῦς 
ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, k.T.A. (** We devote the eighth 
day to gladness, on which also Jesus rose from 
the dead ’’), etc. 

16 Hichh. 

17 Beng. 

18 On Matt. xxv. 24, “" The apostolic tradition 
that, at the time of the Easter vigils, it will not 
be allowed to dismiss the people before mid- 
night, expecting the coming of Christ” (‘* Tra- 
ditionem apostolicum—ut in die vigiliarum 
paschae ante noctis dimidium populos dimittere 
non liceat, expectantes adventum Christi’’). 

19 C. a Lap. 

20 Exod. xxxiii. 20 sqq.; Isa. vi. 5; Ewald, 
Hengstenb. 


110 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


but also experiences the complete effect thereof.1 It is also not to be said 
that “here clearly the awakening to ecstatic consciousness is described,” as 
though John at first had seen nothing, “at least, nothing remarkable,” but 
only first heard;? for “the awakening to ecstatic consciousness,” ὃ which 
is not everywhere represented, has already occurred, since John hears or 
sees, viz., in the Spirit. It is only the unexpected, surprising utterance of — 
the divine voice that is here stated.6 A comparison may, at all events, be 
made with Ezek. iii. 12, where, however, the presentation seems to be condi- 
tioned by the development of the scene itself. — The mighty, loud ® voice is 
like the sound of a trumpet. In connection with the use of the ὡς σάλπιγγος Ἷ 
purely as a comparison, the remark is not applicable that the assembling of 
congregations, and the appearances or revelations of God and Christ, are 
announced with the sound of a trumpet.’ — The voice which imparts the com- 
mand, ver. 11,9 belongs not to “an angel speaking in the person of Christ,” 1° 
nor to the angel mentioned in ver. 1,1! nor to God speaking in distinction 
from Christ, who speaks in ver. 15.12. It has been thought that the voice 
proceeds from him whom John, ver. 12 sqq., sees, and therefore from Christ 
himself; 18 but on account of iv. 1, this cannot be admitted. It is therefore, 
as in iv. 1, x. 4, 8, entirely undecided as to whom this voice belongs. This 
also agrees very well with the ὁπίσω pov. 

Ver. 11. ὃ βλέπεις. The present is neither to be changed into the future,!* 
nor to be explained by the fact, that, with the hearing (ver. 10), the seeing, 
in the wider sense, has already begun; 15 but is without relation to time, Le., 
it is not formally noted that the visions upon which the presentation de- 
pends 16 are yet to follow. There is a similar use of ἀποστέλλω, Matt. xxiii. 34. 
The book into which John, according to the command, wrote what he had 
seen,!’ is the entire Revelation before us.18 — The πέμψον in no way necessitates 
the conception, conflicting with the double ἐγενόμην,19 that the book was written 
on Patmos; but rather the sending of the book is explained in accordance 
with the epistolary superscription, ver. 4 sqq., even if one of the seven cities 
—perhaps Ephesus — must be regarded the author’s place of abode, from 
the preponderating consideration shown it above the other cities. [ is, 
of course, in itself improbable that John wrote long after the reception of 
the revelation, but he rather wrote “while the ἐν πνεύματι still continued in 
effective operation:” 21 but it would have been impossible? for him to 


“ 


1 As in Isa. vi. 5. 9 λεγούσης is to be construed with σαλπ. by 
2 Ebrard. attraction. 
3 On ch. iv. (p. 215) Ebrard interprets the 10 N. de Lyra. 
omigw μου very preposterously as ‘‘ standing 11 Ebrard; cf. on v. 1. 
upon earth.”? Volkmar: As the external world 12 C. a Lap. 
lies extended before man’s face, so what is 13 Alcas., Ew., Hengstenb. 
concealed is back of the world’s view. 14 Ew., De Wette. 
4 iv. 1. é 15 Hengstenb. 
5 Cf., also, Stern, but who incorrectly refers 16 Winer, p. 249 sqq. 
to Isa. xxx. 21. See Knobel on this passage. 17 Cf. ν. 3. 
6 μεγάλη,ν. 2; cf. Matt. xxiv. 31, xxvii. 46, 50. 18 Against Hengstenb.; cf. on v. 4. 
τ εν. 15. 19 See above. 
8 Num. x. 2, 10; Joel ii. 1, 15; Exod. xix. 20 Hengstenb., Ebrard, Klief. 
19; Matt. xxiv. 31; 1 Thess. iv. 16; De Wette, 21 Liicke, p. 814. 


Hengstenb., etc. 22 Cf. Ebrard himself vs. Hengstenb- 


CHAP. I. 12, 13. 111 


write while in the condition which he designates by éyev. ἐν πνεύματι; for an 
essential element of this condition is the cessation of the activity of the νοῦς, 
upon which nothing less than every thing pertaining to the literary form 
and character of the book throughout depends.— The seven cities named are 
clearly introduced according to their geographical situation. According to 
the adjustment of vision from the standpoint of one directing the sending 
of the book, —not of the one writing, — two lines moderately direct appear 
from Patmos, in which the cities lie. In the first line, from south to north, . 
are Ephesus, Smyrna, and Pergamos; in the second line, which extends 
from north to south,—since Thyatira, which is in the neighborhood of 
Pergamos, naturally stands first, —lie Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and 
Laodicea. (See on ver. 20.) 

Ver. 12. καὶ ἐπέστρεψα. John turns,!—viz., according to the connection, 
backwards,?—1in order to see. This is correctly explained according to its 
meaning, as “the one who uttered the voice;” the βλέπειν has its founda- 
tion in the liveliness and directness of the presentation, which immediately 
penetrates from the perception of the voice to the speaker himself, just as in 
iv. 1 λέγων is written, while the subject speaking is only φωνή. --- “ὉΠ now 
sees, after turning, seven golden candlesticks, — but in no way a candlestick 4 
with seven branches,> — and, in the midst of them, Christ himself (ver. 18). 
[See Note XXVI., p. 125.] 

Ver. 13. The entire appearance of Christ expresses essentially what has 
been said of him in vy. 5, 6,° and is likewise as highly significant as that 
declaration, as to the entire contents of the book. Hence each of the seven 
epistles is introduced “by a sketch of his form,”’7? as the majesty of Christ 
here presented, who holds his people in his hand,’ is the real foundation 
and support of the apocalyptic hope.® 

Christ appears in the midst of the seven candlesticks, not walking,!° but 
rather, if any thing dare be imagined, standing. He is not named, but is 
infallibly designated already by the ὅμοιον vid avépdnov.!1_ The ὅμοιον is incor- 
rectly urged by those who wish to infer thence that not Christ, the Son of 
man himself, but “an angel representing Christ,”12is meant. In this ex- 
pression the dogmatic thought is not present, that Christ is essentially more 
than a mere son of man;?8 but John had to write ὅμοιον, which does not cor- 
respond to the simple 3, Dan. vii. 13 (LXX., ὡς),}5 as the type of the form of 
the Son of man was to be recognized in the divine majesty of the entire 
manifestation.15— The Lord, who makes his people priests and kings (ver. 5), 
appears clad in the sublime splendor of the high priest and of kings. He 
wears the robe of the high priest, reaching down to his feet,!° which, accord- 


1 Acts ix. 40. 91 Tim. i. 1; 1 Thess. i. 3. 

2 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 18; Mark xiii. 16; Luke 10 Ebrard, according to ii. 1; cf. on that 
xvii. 31. passage. 

8. N. de Lyra, Beng., etc. 11 Dan. vii. 13; cf. x. 16, 18. 

4 Cf. the interpretation, ver. 20. 12 N. de Lyra, Bossuet, Grot., Marek. 

5 Grot., etc. 18. De Wette, Hengstenb. 

6 Cf. vy. 17, 18. 14 Ebrard. 

7 Herder. 15 Cf, xiii. 2. 


8 Cf. ver. 20. 16 ποδήρης, 8C. χιτων. 


142 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


ing to Wis. xvili. 24,1 was a symbol of the world; yet God himself also 
appears, as he is royally enthroned, in a similar long robe.2 To this is 
added the entirely golden girdle. The girdle of the high priest was only 
adorned with gold.4 That Christ wears the girdle πρὸς τοὶς pavoic,> not about 
the loins,® is in no way to be urged in the sense of Ebrard: “The twofold 
nature of the unglorified body, in the nobly endowed upper part of the body, 
and i in the lower part of the body serving the purposes of reproduction, nour- 
5 ‘ishment, and discharge, vanishes in that higher girding, as it is first correctly 
marked by the girding above the loins.” For, is Dan. x. 5 to be understood 
of an unglorified body? Cf., besides, Josephus, Antigg., iii. 7, 2, as to why 
the priests bind their girdles κατὰ στέρνον. | 
Ver. 14. To the general conception 7 δὲ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ, the part which 
properly pertains to the description is attached by the more accurately de- 
termining xai.7 Thus there is a dependence on the ἡ δὲ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ, corre- 
sponding to which are the special particulars, each of which is designated 
with the addition of αὐτοῦ ; viz., of 690. αὐτοῦ, of rod. αὐτοῦ, and ἡ φων. αὐτοῦ, While 
the καὶ ai τριχ. is without the αὐτοῦ.8 The order of thought is not, therefore, 
as De Wette proposes, first concerning the whole of the head, to which also 
face and beard belong, and then especially to the hair of the head. — The 
whiteness of the hair signifies neither the freedom from sin of Christ’s 
earthly life,® nor in general the holiness peculiar to him; 19. nor does it desig- 
nate merely the heavenly light-nature.1!_ Christ rather appears here to the 
Christian prophet in the same divine brilliancy in which Daniel? beheld 
not the Son of man, but the Ancient of days, whose eternity is designated by 
the whiteness of his hair. This interpretation 18. is justified not only by 
the type in Daniel, but also by the fact that Christ represents himself as the 
Eternal One, like the Father, vv. 4, 8, in his words, corresponding to his 
manifestation, vv. 17, 18; cf. 11. 8. The eyes, ‘as a flame of fire,” 15 are, 
as all the other features, not without significant reference to the revelation 
itself.1° By ii. 18, xix. 12,16 the idea is presented not of omniscience in 
general,!” also not of punitive justice,18 or of holiness consuming all that is 


14 xix. 12; Dan. x. 6; cf. Virg., Aen., v. 
647 sqq.: ‘‘Divini signa decoris ardentesque 
notate oculos—qui voltus vocisque sonus” 


1 Cf. Grimm on the passage. 
2 Isa. vi. 1. 
3 Not “ girdle-buckle,’’ which, according to 


1 Mace. x. 89, was peculiar to kings; Hengstenb. 

4 Exod. xxviii. 8, xxxix. 5 

5 Cf. xv. 6 

6 Dan. Χ. ὅ. 

7 Cf., also, Bengel, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

8 In Dan. vii. 9, according to the LXX., 
there stands, on the other hand, καὶ ἡ θρὶξ τῆς 
κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ. 

9 Areth., Coccej., Vieg. 

10 Hengstenb., who, however, understands 
at the same time, “the majesty of glory.” 

11 De Wette. 

12 vii. 9. 

13 Cf., also, C. a Lap., Calov., Vitr., Storr., 
Diss. in Apoc., gquaed. loc.; Commentatt. ed. 

Velthusei, etc., iv. 439; Stern, etc. 


(‘*Note the marks of divine beauty and the 
glowing eyes; what is the countenance, and 
sound of the voice’’). Hom., Z/., xix. 365 sqq.: 
τὼ δὲ οἱ ὄσσε λαμπέσθην ὡσεί TE πυρὸς σέλας 
(‘* The eyes shone like the brightness of fire’). 

15 On the other hand, De Wette: ‘‘ An ex- 
aggeration of the spirited, fiery glance of 
human eyes, to the penetrating, consuming 
gaze of such eyes as belong to celestial beings, 
as the Greeks also ascribe to their gods, and as 
the Son of God has it in an unparalleled way.” 

16 Cf. Ps. xviii. 9, xevii. 3; Deut. iv. 24, ix. 3; 
Heb. xii. 29. 

17 Vitr., Caloy., Beng., Stern. 

18 Hengstenb.; cf. Ribera, C. a Lap. 


CHAP. I. 15, 16. 113 
impure} without regard to omniscience, but of omniscience combined with 
holy wrath directed against all that is unholy. 

Ver. 15. To such eyes of flame,? belong feet ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ ὡς ἐν καμίνῳ 
πεπυρωμένῃ, Which tread down unholy enemies. De Wette is wrong in find- 
ing in this feature no other meaning than that of the splendor. — The word 
χαλκολίβανος," which the Vulg. renders by orichalcum,' and Luther by Messing, 
is of doubtful derivation and meaning. Ewald follows an ancient testimony ® 
which says that one of the three kinds of incense is so 68]]6 4.7 As the entire 
picture has to do with more than color,’ and as the type of Dan. x. 6° leads 
to the idea of brass,!® incense can in no way be thought of. This is also, 
within the comparison itself, highly unnatural. The feet appear like brass, 
but at the same time, as the second member,! ὡς ἐν cay. πεπυρωμένῃ, Says, “as 
in a furnace glowing with fire,” and therefore like the feet of the angel, x. 2, 
which are ὡς στύλοι πυρός. But whether the word } be a hybrid term composed 
of χαλκός and 129, and therefore mean glowing white; 13 or “ brass from Leba- 
non;”’ 15 or be taken as an intentionally mysterious designation of the ambig- 
uous ἤλεκτρον, Which denotes an alloy, and also amber,!6 and therefore corre- 
sponds in some degree to the former as well as to the second part of χαλκο- 
iBavoc,4? — cannot be certainly decided. The intentional mysteriousness is 
improbable; even though the idea were possible, that—of course, only in 
the provincialism of Asia Minor—the word were popularly formed and 
used in the sense received by Ziillig. Wetzel,!8 by recurring to the root λὲβ, 
ie., running, flowing, reaches the explanation of molten metal (Erzfluss) ; 
perfectly adapted to the meaning, but without sufficient justification in the 
language. — καὶ 7 φωνὴ αὐτ., x.7.A. Cf. Dan. x. 6; Ezek. xliii. 2, 1. 94. The 
force of the voice is represented (cf. ver. 10), but the majesty peculiar to 
the peaceful murmur of the sea 19 is not to be thought of. 

Ver. 16. καὶ ἔχων, «7.4. Not for καὶ εἶχε, «.7.2.;7° but the participle occurs 
in violation of syntax, while John with a few strong touches of his pencil 2 


1 Ebrard. 


2 y. 14, ii. 18. 

SPs. tixe 145 1588. bili: δὲ fs Dan:\-x.,6; 
where, also, arms which cast down are men- 
tioned. 

4 -ov, Suidas. 

5 Cf. Cic., De Off, iii. 23, 12; Horace, Ars 
Poet., 202. 

6 In Salmas, Ad Solin., p. 810; also in Wetst. 

7 ὃ λίβανος ἔχει τρία εἴδη δένδρων, Kai ὃ μὲν 
ἄῤῥην ὀνομάζεται χαλκολίβανος, ἡλιοειδὴς καὶ 
πυῤῥὸς ἤγουν ξανθός (** Lebanon has three kinds 
of trees, and one that is strong is called χαλκο- 
λίβανος, like the sun, and that is to say, the 
reddish-yellow of fire’’). Against this, is the 
notice in Suidas: χαλκολίβανον, εἶδος ἠλέκτρου 
τιμιώτερον χρυσοῦ, ἔστι δὲ TO ἤλεκτρον ἀλλότυ- 
πον χρυσίον μεμιγμένον ὑελῷ καὶ λιθείᾳ (“χαλκ. 
of the appearance of 7Aéxtpor, more valuable 
than gold; and jAex. is gold of another kind 
mingled with glass and stone’”’). 

8 Against Ewald, De Wette. 


9 χὰ» ΓΤ): LXX., χαλκὸς στίλβων. 
Ezek. i. 7, LXX., ἐξαστράπτων χαλκ. Cf. 
Ezek. i. 4, 27, viii. 2, Ow: LXX., ἤλεκτρον. 

10 De Wette. : 

11 The particle of comparison parallel with 
the ὅμοιοι renders the reading πεπυρωμένῳ, 
which is possible in a critical respect, belong- 
ing to χαλκολιβ. (cf. iii. 18), inadvisable for 
exegetical reasons. 

12 Very arbitrarily translated by Hitzig (Jo- 
hannes Marc., p. 68), ‘* Ofenerz.”’ 

13 Grotius, Bochart, Hieroz., iii. p. 900; ed. 
Lips., Vitr., Hengstb. 

14 Syr., Aeth., Areth., Vatabl., Ebr. 

15 Suidas, s. o. 

16 Ew. ii. 

17 Ziillig. ‘ 
18 Zeitschr. fur die gesammte lutherische 
Theol. u. Kirche, Leipzig, 1869, i. p. 94. 

19 Ebrard. 


20 Eichh. 21 De Wette. 


114 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

portrays the sublime manifestation.1 Christ appears, having seven stars? 
in his right hand. The stars are neither to be changed ifto precious stones 
which shine like stars, and to be sought in a ring, or seven rings, on Christ’s 
fingers,* nor is it to be said that “the stars soar so easily, freely, and steadily, 
on or over his right hand, that he might confidently place them ® upon John’s 
head.”® To ask at all where these stars in ver. 17 must be regarded, is a 
question both paltry and unpoetic. That Christ has the stars in his right 
hand, shows that they are his property. This is presented for the consola- 
tion of believers,’ but not in the sense as though the power of Christ over 
the churches, from which no one can deliver, should he wish to punish,® were 
portrayed. This is entirely foreign to the present passage, and even in 
ii. 1 sqq. is conceivable only as Christ, who graciously rules and defensively 
walks in the midst of the candlesticks, can cast a faithless church from its 
candlestick,® or even reject a star. — καὶ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος --- ἐκπορευομένη. Again, 
a new feature of the sublime picture is stated in an asyntactical way. “Who 
can portray this form? And yet it has occurred, alas! a thousand times, 
and the form of the God-man is represented as the most miserable cripple.” 
Thus Herder; while Eichh.,!° just in the present feature of the description, 
would find an offence against the laws of painting. The sharp two-edged 
sword which proceeds from the mouth of the Lord is, in a way similar to 
the feet like brass, a plastic representation of the divine power of Christ, 
in complete accordance with the image of the vision according to which he 
“slays the godless with the rod of his mouth.” Of the power of the word 
of God, preached by Christ’s ministers, striking the conscience and other- 
wise divinely efficacious,!? there is nothing said here. The entire description 
is purely personal. The sword from the mouth?}8 of Christ is directed against 
his enemies both within 15 and without 15 the Church.1®6 What a consolation 
for those whom he holds in his hands! —xai ἡ ὄψις αὑτοῦ designates not the 
countenance,! as ὄψις is used in John xi. 44 but not in vii. 24, but 18 the ap- 
pearance in general. The description is not concluded by a single feature, 
but so that the entire form appears as surrounded with the brilliancy of the 
sun. We are forbidden to take ὄψις in the sense of πρόσωπον by the compari- 
son of x. 1, where this word, frequently found in the Apoc.,!® is regularly 


1 Cf. xix. 12, xxi. 12; where, as here, the 
turning aside from the original construction is 
facilitated by the preceding features of the de- 
scription. 

2 Cf. v. 20. 

3 Holding them, ii. 1. 

4 Hichh., Heinr. 

6 Ebrard. 

7 Cf. John x. 28 sq.; Herder, Ebrard. 

8 Hengstenb.; also Ew. ii. 

9 ii. 5. 

10 Of., also, De Wette. 

11 Tga. xi. 4; cf. xlix. 2; Wis. xviii. 15 sqq.; 
2 Thess. ii. 8. 

12 Heb. iv. 12; Eph. vi. 17; Tichon., Primas., 
Arethas, Vitr., Calov., Stern; cf., also, De 
Wette, etc. 


5 vy. 17. 


13 The graphic idea lying at the foundation 
(cf., besides, Ps. lv. 22, lvii. 5, lix. 8, etc.) is 
frequently expressed in the rabbins. Pirke 
Elies.: ‘‘Moses removed him with the sword 
of his lips.— Dathan said to him, ‘Do you 
seek to slay me with tke sword which is in thy 
mouth?’’’? Wetst., Schottg., also on 2 Thess. 
ii. 8. 

14 jj. 12, 16. 

15 xix. 15, 21. 

16 Ebrard. 

17 Vulg., Luth., Calov., Herd., Hengstenb., 
Ebrard, De Wette. 

18 Valla, Erasm., Eichh., Ew., Ziill. 

19 OLAV slg) συ], ΧΣΙ ANd ee Gs OXI ake x Xe 
1: 


CHAP. I. 17. 115 


used; also Dan. x. 6, where πρόσωπον occurs, and that, too, in the beginning 
of the detailed description, is throughout against Hengstenberg’s opinion. 
In like manner, in the description, Dan. x. 6, τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ doe θαρσίς, the 
entire form of the Lord is to be regarded: ὡς ὁ ἥλιος φαίνει ἐν τῇ δυνάμει. The 
additional designation,’ of course, is not necessarily to be referred to the 
noonday brillianecy*? of the sun, but is correctly paraphrased by De Wette: 
“when its light is at the strongest.”® The sun shines in its strength when 
neither mist nor clouds intercept its rays.4 | 

Ver. 17. The impression made by the appearance of the Lord ὅ is that of 
mortal terror; for, since death is the wages of sin, no sinful man can stand 
alive before God. Yet John is supported by Him who is not only absolutely 
the living, but also, since he himself has passed into death,’ and has over- 
come it, has redeemed his people therefrom, as he has the keys of death and 
hell. — De Wette finds a contradiction in the fact that “the seer beholds all 
this in spirit, and so represents things as though he had stood opposite to 
these appearances in his bodily form, and with his ordinary human powers 
of conception and feeling: cf. v. 4, xvii. 6, xix. 10, xxii. 8; Dan. vii. 15.” 
But by the ἐν πνεύματι (ver. 10), his being in the body is not removed. Just 
as the feeling of those who dream is also customarily expressed in a bodily 
way, e.g., by actual weeping, it may readily be thought that while John 
actually sees ἐν πνεύματι ---ἰ.6., in prophetic ecstasy —the actual appearance 
of the Lord, he bodily sinks down.’ — ὡς νεκρός is not “like one dying,” ® but 
“like one dead.” The laying-on of the right hand is, like in Christ’s mira- 
cles of healing,!® an accompanying friendly sign of the aid peculiarly offered 
through the Word.— The Lord begins his words just as heavenly beings 
have ordinarily to address men: μὴ φοβοῦ. Cf. Luke 1. 19, 30, 11. 10; Mark 
xvi. 6 (Matt. xvii. 7). This, as also in general ver. 17 sqq., suits the opin- 
ion of Ebrard, that the falling-down of John was not merely an effect of 
terror, but “an act of love.” —éyé εἰμι ὁ πρῶτος, x.7.A. Incorrectly, Wetst., 
Grot., etc., from dogmatic prejudice: “the highest in dignity—the most 
despised.” Three times after εἰμι, Eichh. mis-points “I am,”—as, Matt. 
xiv. 27; John vi. 20, which is entirely inapplicable here; and then, 6 zp. x. ὁ 
eox. = “the only one in his class,” καὶ ὁ Gov =“ with respect to life, among 
the living’’! Christ is, as the Father (ver. 8), the First and the Last, i.e., 
he is personally the A and the 2;!! and in this lies that which is epexegetic- 
ally 12 added, that he is absolutely the Living One,!8 who, just on that account, 
can also give life. This reference of the conception ὁ ζῶν,} 6 which 15 in itself 
already necessary, since the personal Eternal One must have his eternity 
as an energetic attribute, is yet specially emphasized by ver. 18; and that, 
too, in such way that what is said in both halves of the verse, even though 


1 Cf. Judg. τ. 31; LXX.: ὡς ἔξοδος ἡλίου ἐν 7 ἐγεν. νεκρός. 
δυνάμει αὐτοῦ. 8 Cf. Acts ix. 4. 
2 Hichh., Ueinr. 9 Eichh. 
3 Against Ebrard. 10 Beng., Hengstenb. 
4 Hengstenb. 11 xxii. 18. 
5 Isa. vi. 4; Exod. xxxiii. 20; Ezek. i. 23; 12 καί. 
Dan. viii. 17 sqq., x. 7 sqq. 13 Cf. John i. 1 sqq., v. 26. 
‘6 Cf., especially, Isa. vi. 4. 14 Not equal to ζωοποιῶν, Grot. 


¥ 


116 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
not according to form, yet according to meaning, is related as foundation © 
(καὶ ἐγεν. --- αἰώνων) and consequence (καὶ éxw,«.7.4.). For, just because Christ 
who suffered death,! after having risen,? henceforth does not die,’ but is liv- 
ing to eternity, he has the keys of death and of hell, i.e., power over them, 
so that he can preserve and deliver therefrom, but also can cast therein.® 
The figurative presentation of the keys® must not be regarded a personifi- 
cation of the θάνατος and the ἄδης ; 1 but, on the other hand also, both can be 
regarded only as a place, when it is said that ‘both designate one and the 
same idea.”®8 Yet the θάνατος, after which the ἅδης, vi. 8, appears, is, more 
accurately speaking, to be distinguished from the latter.° To think of θάνα- 
τος as a place, is inadmissible. The gates of death 1° are spoken of in oppo- 
sition to the gates of the daughter of Zion;11 here death is personified, and 
regarded as a possessor or lord of the gates. The place of death, which 
appears closed in with gates, is adyc.12 In this double and not completely 
symmetrical delineation of the idea, according to which “gates” are ascribed 
to personal death as well as to local hell, the κλεῖς must here be understood. — 
The intention of this entire detailed address is so far in advance of merely 
freeing John from his terrors of death, as John is the prophet, who himself 
must experience and understand the majesty of the Lord, whose coming he 
is to proclaim, in order that he may bring to the churches full testimony 
concerning the same.18 Thus ver. 19 suitably concludes. 

Ver. 19. It is impossible for the οὖν, without reference to vv. 17, 18, to 
serve only to recall the command, ver. 11.14 Hengstenb. better combines the 
reference to ver. 11 with that to vv. 17, 18: “ When, therefore, this fear is 
removed, do what I have bidden thee.” But, apart from the fact that it 
is very doubtful whether, ver. 11, Christ himself has spoken, this reference 
to vv. 17, 18, which even does not correspond to the meaning of these verses, 
is highly unsatisfactory. Grotius seems with greater correctness to remark, 
“‘ Because you see that I am so powerful.” The Lord, therefore, bases upon 
the revelation of his own majesty (vv. 17, 18) communicated to the prophet, the 
command to write, i.e., to give written witness to the churches (ver. 1 sqq.) ; 
since the contents of this revelation, which is to be communicated, is essen- 
tially nothing else than the full unfolding of what has been beheld by the 
prophet (ver. 12 sqq.), and the majesty of Christ disclosed by the Lord him- 
self in significant words (vv. 17, 18). For the Living One will come; who 
was dead (ver. 18), whom they have pierced (ver. 7), but who is alive in 


1 éyev. veep. Concerning the aor., cf. ii. 8. 

2 Cf. the ἔζησεν, ii. 8. 

3 Cf. Rom. vi. 9; Acts xiii. 34. 

4 ζῶν εἰμι, K.7.A., a strong emphasis of the 
conception ζῶν. 

5 Cf. iii. 7. This has an entirely different 
meaning from when Acacus, the porter of the 
lower world, is called κλεισδοῦχος. Cf. H. L. 
Ahrens, Das Amt der Schlussel, Hannover, 
1864, p. 6. 

6 ix. 1,xx.1. Cf. Targ.Jon.on Deut. xxviii. 
12: ‘“‘ Four keys are in the hand of the Lord, — 
a key of life and of tombs, and of food and 


of rain.” Still more, the mode given in 
Wetst. 

VIN KK. Les 2.111: 

8 De Wette. 

9 xx. 13, 14. 


aT LXX. θάνατος. 

11 Ps. ix. 14; cf. Job xxxviii. 17. 

12 Sixyy, Isa. xxxvili. 10; ef. the NIDOY, 
LXX. ἄδης, Job xxxviii. 11. ae 

13 Cf. Exod. iii.; Isa. vi.; Acts ix. 

14 Against Aretius, who immediately re- 
marks, “ἔκστασις injures the memory;” also 
against De Wette. 


CHAP. I. 20. ἘΠ 


eternity, whom John beheld, and was commissioned by the Coming One 
himself to proclaim his advent.— This is also given by the sense of the 
following words, which more accurately designate the subjects to be written 
of: & εἶδες, x.7.A. There can be no doubt that the eidec refers to the vision above 
narrated. The καὶ ἅ εἰσὶν, moreover, after its reference to ἃ ¢id., or to x, ἃ μελλ., 
κιτιλ., is fixed, means either “and what it is,” i.e., signifies ;1 or, “and what 
is,” i.e., the present relations. The latter is far more natural, especially as 
the antithesis between ἃ εἰσὶν and ἃ μέλλει γεν. is marked particularly by the 
retrospection of the μετὰ ταῦτα to the ἃ εἰσὶν. Yet it must not be said that 
the .ἃ εἶδες in ch. i., ἃ εἰσὶν in chs. 11. and 111., and ἃ μελλ., «.7.4., are com- 
prised; but, rather, the epistles already contain the future, and the suc- 
ceeding chapters the present; yea, the entire book bears the true prophetic 
stamp in this, that what is future is also prophesied of the present. That 
in ver. 20 a point of the vision, ver. 12 sqq., is actually indicated,* can be 
decided concerning the meaning of the ἃ εἶδες the less, as by the ἃ εἶδες the 
entire vision, ver. 12 sqq , is meant.® 

Ver. 20. τὸ μυστήριον τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀστέρων, x.7.2., is to be regarded as dependent 
upon γράψον. This idea is already correctly explained by N. de Lyra: “ the 
sacrament of the stars, i.e., the sacred secret signified by them.” Μυστῆριον 
and ἀποκάλυφις are correlate ideas; for a μυστήριον is all that man understands, 
not by himself, but only by divine publication and interpretation,® such as 
immediately follows.?’ When, now, John has seen the mystery of the seven 
stars which are at the Lord’s right hand,® and is to write of the mystery of 
the seven golden candlesticks, this is in no way undone by the second half 
of ver. 20, where only the simple explanation of the mysterious symbol is 
given. As the words τὸ pvornp. — χρυσᾶς ὃ are formally equivalent to the words 
ἃ εἶδες --- ταῦτα, so, also, the mystery of the seven stars and candlesticks in 
substance corresponds thereto. The command to write this mystery is ful- 
filled by nothing else than the entire book: for the prophetic development of 
the hope of the victorious completion of the Church of Christ by his return 
depends upon the mystery of the seven stars in Christ’s hand, and the seven 
candlesticks in whose midst Christ walks; i.e., that Christ is the protector 
of his Church, vanquishing all enemies. This consolatory hope, perceptible 
only to believers, is the chief matter in the mystery of tlie stars and candle- 
sticks which the prophet beholds, and whose meaning he is to testify to the 
churclies.!° If now, before the mystery of the seven stars with the entire 
treasures of prophetic adinonition, warning, and comfort, be stated in this 


1 Alcas., Aret., Eichh., Heinr., Herd., Ew., 8 ἐπί, i.e., resting on the same, and therefore 

Bleek, De Wette; cf. Klief., ‘‘ what they are.” as to substance nothing else is to be under- 
2 Areth., N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Grot., stood that the ἐν, v. 16. 

Calov., Vitr., Beng., Wolf, Ziill., Hengstenb., 9 In an apposition without the καὶ. 

Ebrard, Lucke p. 401, Volkm. 10 Inconceivable, however, is the idea ex- 
3 Cf. Introduction, sec. 2. pressed by Klief., that, during the entire reve- 
4 Cf. xvii. Τ sqq., and elsewhere. lation (until xxii. 5), the Lord remains standing 
δ᾽ Against De Wette; also against Kliefoth. alongside of John in the situation described in 
6 Matt. xiii. 11; Mark iv. 11; Rom. xi. 25; the vision, i. 10-18. Already in ch. iv. the 

Eph. v. 32, i. 9. situation changes. 


ΟΣ xwn. i. 


118 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


sense,! an express interpretation of the symbols beheld by John be given,? 
this is just the key to the entire mystery, — the fundamental meaning, from 
which the correct application of all that follows depends. The essential 
meaning of the two symbols is unmistakable: the candlesticks are an easily 
understood figure of the churches,? which have received their light from 
Christ, and continue to be sustained by the Lord, who walks in their midst.4 
An allied idea must lie, however the ἄγγελοι be understood, in the symbol of 
the stars in Christ’s right hand, whereby, at all events, the ἄγγελοι of the 
churches are described, and that in such a way that to the churches them- 
selves belongs ® what is ascribed to their angels.® So far, all interpreters are 
unanimous. The controversy centres upon the word ἄγγελοι. This must 
mean either “messenger”? or “angel.” To the former meaning, Ebrard 
holds, by understanding messengers of the churches to John: not “ordinary 
letter-carriers, but delegates of the churches, who report to him, and are 
again to convey his apostolic prophecies to the churches ; who therefore hold 
a similar position between him and the churches to that which Epaphroditus 
probably held between Paul and the Philippians;”® yet these messengers 
are represented as existing not in reality, but “only in vision.” “Beneath the 
stars, John is to regard himself the ambassador of the churches.” Against 
the unnaturalness of such an opinion, Vitr.,® Wolf, Schottgen, Beng., Eichh., 
Heinr. ,!° Ewald, etc., have guarded, who understand the “ messenger ” of the 
Christian churches, after the manner of the Jewish ΣΝ my, of an officer 
subordinate to the priest, who has to read, pray, and care for external 
matters of many kinds. But apart from the question as to whether this 
messenger of the synagogue existed already in apostolic times, the same 
can only with difficulty be regarded a type of the Christian bishop or elder; 
for only that officer, and not the deacon, dare at any rate be regarded such 
representative of the entire church, as the ἄγγελος appears in the seven 
epistles. The latter view is taken by those who, appealing to Mal. ii. 7, 
111. 1,12 and, as to what refers to the symbol of the stars, to Dan. xii. ὃ, under- 
stand the ἄγγελοι, i.e., angels, as superintendents (Vorsteher), teachers, as 
bishops or presbyters.12 So also R. Rothe,!* who, however, in the angels of | 
the churches perceives only “a prolepsis of bishops in the idea,” i.e., regards 
the bishops as an ideal whose realization is still to be expected. Here finally 
belongs, also, Hengstenb., who nevertheless}® regards the angels of every 
individual church, not as an individual, but as “the entire church govern- 
ment,” i.e., the body of presbyters, — eventually with a bishop at the head, 


1 Chs. ii., iii., and also ch. iv. sqq. 11 Concerning whom it could formerly have 

2 νυν. 200. ; been thought otherwise, with Ewald. Yet Ew. 

SICh tio: ii., the mediator, i.e., the Vorsteher, of the 

4 Cf. Matt. v. 14 sqq. church. 

δ» Ἂς 11. 12 Exod. xxiii. 20; Isa. xlii. 19; Ps. ciii. 20 

6 Chs. ii. and iii. sqq.; Hengstenb. 

7 Luke vii. 24, ix. 52; Jas. ii. 25; but cer- 13 Primas, Beda, N. de Lyra, Zeger, Drus., 
tainly not 1 Tim. iii. 16, as Ebrard thinks. Alcas., C. a Lap., Bossuet, Beza, Grot., 

8 Phil. iv. 18; cf., also, Col. iv. 12. Calov., Herder, Klief., etc. 

9 Cf. De Synag. vet., ili. 2; 2, 3. 14 Anfdnge d. christl. Kirche, i. p. 423 sqq. 


10 Yet cf. I. p. 205. 15 Cf. Brightman, Alsted. 


CHAP. I. 20. | 119 


— together with the deacons. This manner of exposition, which in its 
original simplicity always commends itself more than in its elaborate modi- 
fications by Rothe and Hengstb., is at variance partly with the use of the 
word ἄγγελος otherwise in the Apoc., and partly with the decisive cireum- 
stance, that, in the epistles which are directed to the ἄγγελος of each congre- 
gation, the relations of the congregations themselves are so definitely and 
directly treated, that, for the full explanation of this appearance, the view 
that the bishops or the entire governing body of the church are the repre- 
sentatives of their churches, besides not being in itself entirely justified, is 
not at all sufficient. Thus the view still remains, that, as Andr. and Areth. 
already say, the angel of the church is the church itself. In a certain 
analogy with xiv. 18, xvi. 5,1 where the angel of the elements, as the nations 
and the individuals are called, the ἄγγελος of a church can be regarded? the 
personified spirit of the church. This conception is not identical with that 
of the ἄγγεγος égopoc,* according to which, e.g., among the rabbins, the funda- 
mental principle obtains, “God does not punish any people below without 
first casting down its chief from above,” ὅ but has been formed in depend- 
ence thereon. Against this, the objection cannot be made valid, that the 
article is absent before ἄγγελοι: for the question has to do only with what is 
comprised in ἄγγελοι τ, éxxa., Which is symbolized by the figure of the stars, 
without its being expressly marked here that the seven stars signify at any 
time one angel of the seven churches ; just as, in the succeeding words, it is 
only expressly said that the seven candlesticks mean the seven churches, but 
not that the precise churches mentioned in ver. 11 are meant. But, as this 
designation of the conception is self-evident from the connection, so it is 
clearly inferred, from the superscription of the epistles which follow, that 
the angels of particular churches are meant. The most plausible objection 
against our exposition is made by Rothe; viz., that it is not proper, that, by 
the symbol of the stars, another symbol, viz., that of the angels, should be 
represented, especially alongside of the real ideas of the churches, which, 
also represented by a special symbol, are clearly distinguished from the 
ἄγγελοι τ. εκκλ. But? the ἄγγελοι τ. εκκλ. are to be regarded not at all as a 
symbol, but as —of course ideally — reality; and, according to this concep- 
tion, to be in fact distinguished from churches that have been observed. If 
the ἐκκλησία, which is symbolized by the candlesticks, is considered, it appears 
variously composed of individual elements of various kinds, each of which 
is especially judged and treated of by the Lord; while, on the other hand, 
the ἄγγελος τ. ἐκκλησίας appears as the living unity of the one organism 
of the church, which, as it were, in mass clings to the Lord. Thus it is, 
that the epistles are directed, not to the angels of the churches, and besides 


1 Cf. vii. 1, ix. 11; Dan. x. 18, 20; Matt. p. 39 sq., has accepted the presentation as 


xviii. 10; Deut. xxxii. 8 (LXX.). above given. 
2 Cf. Salmas, De episc. et presb., p. 183; 5 In Wetst. 

Wetst., Ziill., Bleek, etc.) ὃ Cf. also Volkm., who, however, mentions 
3 De Wette, Liicke, p. 432. also that the ayy. ἔφορος has ‘‘ his earthly sub- 
¢ So Hilgenf., Introd., p. 412. But the con- stratum ”’ in the president of the congregation. 

tents of the epistles do not harmonize with the 7 Cf. Liicke. 


idea of an actual guardian angel. Gebhardt, 


120 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

to the churches, as must be expected even according to Rothe’s meaning, 
but only to the angel of each church; and yet in such way that their 
entirety as one person, one spiritual body, is declared. [See Note XXVII., 
p. 125.] 

In conformity with the vision, ver. 12 sqq., and the epistles which in 
chs. ii. and iii. are directed to the seven churches,! must be the answer to 
the question as to what is the significance of these churches in the sense of 
the writer of the Apoc. Of the two chief views that are possible, according 
to which they appear either in purely historical definiteness, or in a certain 
typical position, the latter in the nature of the case has to be presented with 
many modifications, which, taken together, depend more or less upon an 
historical view; while, according to the former view,? there is no denial of a 
more general significance of the seven churches, at least in the sense that the 
epistles directed to them share the universal ecclesiastical relation of all the 
apostolic writings to particular congregations.’ But against this opinion of 
Hengstenb., — who, in accordance with his false view of the relation of the sec- 
tion i. 4-111. 22 to the whole book,* comprehends the seven churches collectively 
with the utmost limitation,® — is, first, the number seven; ® and, secondly, the 
meaning of that vision wherein Christ appears in the midst of the seven 
candlesticks, i.e., churches, which therefore cannot be without a typical 
significance, since Christ is Lord and Saviour of all the churches (with 
which it also harmonizes well, that Christ writes to the angels of the churches; 
a conception, which, since it is of a more ideal nature, especially adapts 
itself to the fact that the churches, while appearing in all their historical 
definiteness, yet at the same time are found in a typical sense) ; and, thirdly 
and finally, the contents themselves of the letters, whose pertinence to the 
universal Church? is not only expressly emphasized,’ but also concurs in 
its essential leading features with the chief thoughts of the entire book. 
But the significance of the seven churches is not to be limited to the entire 
Church of Asia Minor,’ which only then, through this intermediate member, 
attains its further reference to the Church universal: rather, in the seven 
churches, the entire Church of Christ is regarded,!° since it is a peculiarity of 
the writer of the Apoc. to present the general and ideal realistically, and in 
a definite, plastic way.1!_ But with this it is also established, that all further 
determinations which have been connected, even by a play of words, with the 


1 Of. vv. 4, 11. 

2 Wolf, Harenburg (who nevertheless un- 
derstand seven Jewish and Judaeo-Christian 
schools found in Jerusalem, and named after 
the Asiatic cities), Herder, Liicke, — cf., on 
the other hand, Harenb.,— De Wette, Bleek, 
Hengstenb., etc. 

3 Hengstenb. 4 Cf. on ver. 4. 

5 Cf. Liicke, Ebrard, and already Vitr. 

6 For it is certain that in Colossa and Hier- 
opolis (Col. iv. 14), and probably, e.g., in 
Tralles and Magnesia (cf. the Letters of Igna- 
tius), there were churches; so that John, for 
the sake of the significative number seven 


(‘*completeness is symbolized by the number 
seven,’—N. de Lyra, etc.), is compelled to 
limit himself to those mentioned. 

7 Cf. already the Fragmeut of Muratori: 
“« For although in the Apoc., John writes to the 
seven churches, yet he speaks to all.’’ Wiese- 
ler’s Ausgabe in the Stud. u. Krit., 1847, p. 
815 sqq. 

8 ji. 11, 17, etc.; cf. i. 3, xxii. 9, 18 sqq. 

9 As Lticke wishes. 

10 Victorin, Areth., Beda, N. de Lyra, Grot., 
De Wette, ete. 

11 Cf. the idea of the seven angels and (ver. 
4) the seven spirits. 


NOTES. 121 


names of the individual congregations,! are entirely arbitrary. This applies 
especially to the strange controversy as to whether, in the seven epistles, the 
conditions of the Church of Christ be understood synchronistically, and that, 
too, eschatologically, i.e., so that only “at the end of Church history,” im- 
mediately before Christ’s return, are we to expect the corresponding forms 
of Christian Church-life ;? or whether the prophetically portrayed conditions 
are to be understood consecutively of seven periods of Church history, suc- 
ceeding one after another; or, finally, whether they be partly consecutive 
and partly synchronistic.4 The sort of foundations upon which such artificial 
interpretation is supported is shown, e.g., by Ebrard, who explains the first 
four epistles consecutively, because the promises in them® are regarded as 
derived “from consecutive epochs of O. T. history: Paradise, Death, the 
Departure from Egypt, the Kingdom of David.” The context shows that 
John has in view particular circumstances of churches present to him, and 
therefore that the number seven of these churches is contemplated as a mirror 
of the entire Church.* In a chronological relation, the apocalyptic prophecy 
of these seven epistles extends just as far, and is limited in the same truly 
prophetic way, as the apocalyptics of the entire book, which gives the full 
explanation of the fundamental thought contained already in the vision, 
ver. 12 sqq., and the epistles belonging thereto; viz., the unfolding of the 
prophecy, ‘‘ The Lord cometh.” 


NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 
XV. Ver. 1. ἦν ἔδωκεν αυτῷ ὁ θεὸς. 


Alford presents the argument on the other side: “‘Stern asks, ‘How are we 
to understand this? Is not Christ very God, of one essence with the Father 
from eternity ? Did he not, by virtue of the omniscience of his divine nature, 
know as exactly as the Father what should be the process of the world’s history, 
what the fate of the Church? What purpose was served by a revelation from 
God to Jesus?’ He proceeds to say that the words cannot refer to the revela- 
tion as made to us, but are clearly against such an interpretation; and gives, at 
some length and very well, that which, in one form or other, all will accept as 
the true explanation, in accordance with John vii. 16, xiv. 10, xvii. 7,8. The 


1 «"Edeoos reminds them that they ought to 
be inflamed with the desire for eternal things, 
for ἔφεσις is desire.” Grot. Cf. even Ebrard. 

2 Hofmann, Weiss. τι. Erfiill., ii. pp. 320, 
324. 

3 Mede, Brightm., Vitr. 

Bids fy Abs ὁ ΡΥ 

6 According to Kliefoth, Zahlensymbolik 
der H. Schr. Theolog. Zeitsch., 1862, p. 53) 
what is consecutive lies just in the number 
seven. Similarly in Commentar (p. 271: ‘* The 
number seven shows the development allotted 
the entire Church’’). He understands the en- 
tire first part (i. 20b-iii. 22) as a statement of 
the ἃ εἰσὶν (i. 19), i.e., of those which are the 
things beheld (i. 10-18) for the present course 


4 Ebrard. 


of time, while i. 200 gives the meaning of vv. 
10-18; and then in chs. ij. and ili. are por- 
trayed the developments of Christianity origi- 
nating in the present, before the ‘*‘ far in the 
future” final period beginning with iv. 1. 
Only in the last four epistles does Klief. find 
a reference to the parousia, as the circum- 
stances portrayed therein are actually to extend 
in close consecutive chronological sequence 
until the epoch of the parousia. What is con- 
secutive in the number seven, derived here 
(p. 163) from the order of the divine working, 
is referred, however, by Klief. (on xvii. 9, p. 
210) to the relations of the anti-Christian 
world-power, which (iii. p. 258) is called 
**the fiual work of the Devil.’ 


122 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


man Christ Jesus, even in his glorified state, receives from the Father, by his 
hypostatie union with him, that revelation which, by his Spirit, he imparts to 
his Church. For (Acts i. 7) the times and seasons are kept by the Father in his 
own power; and of the day and the hour knoweth no man, not the angels in 
heaven, nor even the Son, but the Father only (Mark xiii. 52). I may observe 
that the coincidence, in statement of this deep point of doctrine, between the 
Gospel of St. John and the Apocalypse, is at least remarkable.”’ 


XVI. Ver. 1. διὰ τοῦ ayyédov, 


Gebhardt (p. 40) maintains that the transference into an ecstasy cannot be 
regarded as showing the future; and, indorsing Dist.’s generic conception, 
defines the angel here as ‘‘ the personification, so far as it respects the seer, of 
the whole revealing activity of God or Christ. With this idea alone, can we 
reconcile the fact that now this angel, and now that, sometimes, indeed, a voice, 
the voice of God, or Christ himself, speaks to the seer; and it is only on this 
principle that we can explain the manner in which, xxii. 6, the angel speaks of 
the angel of God being sent.’’ This conception of the angel as a personification 
harmonizes with the interpretation of the angels of the churches. 

Beck, however, says, ‘‘ The article before ἀγγ., according to the natural 
idiom, definitely presents an individual from the genus of angels, and the αὐτοῦ 
refers to Jesus Christ who sends; cf. xxii. 16. The designation ‘ his angel’ is 
thoroughly consistent according to 1 Pet. iii. 22; ef. Matt. xiii. 41.” 


XVII. Ver. 4. ἀπὸ ὁ ov. 


So also Trench: ‘‘ Doubtless the immutability of God is intended to be 
expressed in this immutability of the name of God, in this absolute resistance 
to change or even modification which the name presents.’’ Beck: ‘‘ The name 
of the Immutable is presented in the form of immutability.” 


XVIII. Ver. 4. ὁ ἐρχόμενος. 


Gebhardt (p. 21): ‘* John does not use ἐρχόμενος as synonymous with ἐσόμενος, 
but in the sense of coming to judgment for the final completion of the eternal 
world-plan.”’ Cremer (Lexicon): ‘‘ In Rev. i. 4, 8, iv. 8, ὁ ἐρχόμενος denotes God 
as the God of the future revelation of salvation; cf. Isa. xl. 9: and the title 
(viz., ὁ ὦν, x.7.4.), as a whole, is given to God, as the God of an eternal and 
unchangeable covenant.’ Tait: ‘‘ The word ἐρχόμενος is the keynote of revela- 
tion. It runs like a silver thread throughout the entire book. It enters into it 
at the beginning, and it is summed up at the end by ‘Surely I come quickly.’ ”’ 


XIX. Ver. 4. τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων. 


Trench: ‘‘ There is no doubt, that, by ‘the seven spirits,’ we are to under- 
stand, not, indeed, the sevenfold operations of the Holy Ghost, but the Holy 
Ghost sevenfold in his operations. Neither need there be any difficulty in 
reconciling this interpretation, as Mede urges, with the doctrine of his person- 
ality. It is only that he is regarded here not so much in his personal unity as 
in his manifold energies, 1 Cor. xii. 4. The matter could not be put better than 
it is by Richard of St. Victor: ‘Et a septem spiritibus, id est, a septiformi 


NOTES. 128 


Spiritu, qui simplex quidem est per naturam, septiformis per gratiam.’”’ 
Gerhard (Loci Theologici, xviii. 234): “ΒΥ the seven spirits, the Spirit is to be 
understood metonymically, of whom the Church sings that he is septiformis 
munere. This paraphrase is to be understood by synecdoche; viz., in the sense 
that the Holy Spirit is the author and giver, not only of seven but of all spirit- 
ual charisms. John, however, employs the number seven, because it is the 
number of perfection, and denotes multiplicity (Amos i. 6; Prov. xxiv. 15; 
Ps. exix. 164; Isa. iv. 1). This interpretation is proved: 1. From the quality 
and condition of what is predicated. John prays for grace and peace to the 
seven churches, from the seven spirits. But the bestowment of grace and peace, 
i.e., spiritual and heavenly blessings, is the part of no creature, but of God 
alone; and hence the apostles, in their epistles, never pray that grace may be 
given those to whom they write, from angels or from any other creature, but 
only from God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, because it is only God who is 
the author of grace and peace. 2. From the equal conjunction of the seven 
spirits with God the Father and the Son. John prays that grace and peace be 
given the churches equally ‘from him which is, and which was, and which is 
to come; and from the seven spirits, and from Jesus Christ;’ and that, too, by 
a mode of invocation in which the ἀπὸ is thrice repeated, and the seven spirits 
assigned the same degree of dignity with the Father and the Son. 3. From the 
order and position. The seven spirits are interposed between the Father and 
the Son. Therefore created spirits or angels cannot be understood; for, when- 
ever angels are joined with God and Christ as ministers, they are subjoined 
(1 Tim. v. 21; Rev. iii. 5: the intention of the passage, Mark xiii. 32, is different, 
where the discourse rises to a climax),’’ etc. Cf., also, in the ‘‘ Veni Creator 
Spiritus,’’ ascribed by many to Charlemagne, by others to Gregory the Great, 
referred to above by Gerhard, — 


“ΤῸ septiformis munere,” 
as paraphrased in the most widely used English translation, — 


‘‘ Thou the anointing Spirit art, 
Who dost thy sevenfold gifts impart.” 
Luther’s rendering — 
“Du bist mit Gaben siebenfalt ”’ — 


more closely conforms to the original and the strict meaning of the passage, 
although the ‘‘sevenfold gifts”? or ‘‘ operations” is a necessary inference, and is 
sustained by such passages as Isa. xi. 2, 3. 


XX. Ver. 5. ὁ πρωτότοκος, 


Cf. Meyer on 1 Cor. xv. 20; Col. i. 18. Others, indeeu, were raised from 
the dead before Christ’s resurrection, e.g., the daughter of Jairus, and Lazarus; 
yet they were not raised to immortal life, but their souls were re-invested with 
mortal bodies. See the contrast drawn by Rom. vi. 9; also, in this chapter, v. 1S. 


XXI. Ver. 5. καὶ λύσαντι. 


Beck, who, however, prefers the reading λούσαντι, adds on the ἐν τῷ aipate: 
‘‘ For it is not the material, lifeless blood of one dead, but the spiritually quick- 
ened blood of the risen One, i.e., of one born anew by the resurrection, of the 


124 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. - 


spiritually glorified Son of man. The sin-cleansing efficacy of the blood of 
Christ is, therefore, one that works inwardly, cleansing the heart and mind, 
towards God (Heb. ix. 14; ef. vii. 16, x. 19-21). λούειν is, therefore, not merely 
judicial liberation from sin as a debt, nor moral liberation from the bondage of 
sin (as two parties of exegetes here try to maintain), but one divine act accom- 
plished in the person, whereby the habitual, sinful nature of the human heart 
and mind, discontent with God, and hostility towards him, are removed, and 
changed into a communion of peace and love with God, into a new habit, 
whence, at last, the personal freedom from sin, and sanctification in God, 
result.’ Tait: ‘* Tell us not, then, that the death of Christ was merely that 
of a martyr, a spectacle before men and angels of the dignity of self-sacrifice, — 
that it was intended to reconcile man to God by preaching to’ us, through a 
mortal, the evil of sin and the majesty of sorrow.”’ 


XXII. Ver. 6. ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ. 


On the relation of ἱερεῖς to the preceding verse, Plumptre refers to the 
consecration, as priests, of Aaron and his sons, by the sprinkling of blood, and 
adds: ‘‘ The two ideas of being cleansed with blood, and of entering on a 
priest’s work, were accordingly closely linked together. But, in that baptism of 
blood of which St. John thought, the washing was not limited to any priestly 
family, but was co-extensive with the whole company of believers. They, there- 
fore, had become what the older Israel of God was at first meant to be in idea 
and constitution, ‘a kingdom of priests.’ That sprinkling of blood upon the 
whole people, before the great. apostasy of the golden calf, had been the symbol 
that they, too, were all consecrated, and set apart for their high calling (Exod. 
xx. 6, 10, xxiv. 8). So John (in this instance, also following in the track of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews) looked on the true priests’ work as not limited to any 
order of the Church’s ministry.”’ 


XXIII. Ver. 7. μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν, 


Luthardt interprets the clouds as ‘‘in heavenly glory.’’ Trench, on the 
other hand, maintains that they belong ‘‘ not to the glory and gladness, but 
the terror and anguish, of that day. The clouds have nothing in common with 
the νεφέλη φωτεινῆ (Matt. xvii. 5), ‘the glorious privacy of light,’ into which the 
Lord was withdrawn, fora while, from the eyes of his disciples at the trans- 
figuration; but are rather the symbols or fit accompaniments of judgment (Ps. 
xevii. 2; cf. xviii. 11; Nah. i. 38; Isa. xix. 11).”’ Both ideas, however, are recon- 
cilable, according as those who contemplate Christ’s coming are believing or 
unbelieving. 


XXIV. Ver. 7. οἵτινες αὑτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν. 


Alford: ‘*‘ The persons intended in this expression are, beyond doubt, those 
to whom our Lord. prophesied in like terms, Matt. xxvi. 64; viz., those who were 
his murderers, whether the Jews who delivered him to be crucified, or the 
Romans who actually inflicted his death.” 


XXV. Ver. 10. ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ. 


Trench: ‘‘Some have assumed, from this passage, that ἡμέρα κυριακῇ was a 
designation of Sunday already familiar among Christians. This, however, 


NOTES. 125 


seems a mistake. The name had, probably, its origin here. A little later, we 
find ἡμέρα κυριακή familiar to Ignatius, as Dominica solemnia to Tertullian (De 
Anima, c. 9; cf. Dionysius of Corinth, quoted by Eusebius, H. E., iv. 23, 8; 
Clement of Alexandria, Strom., vii. 12; Origen, Con. Cels., viii. 22). But, 
though the name ‘the Lord’s Day’ will very probably have had here its rise 
(the actual form of the phrase may have been suggested by κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, 
1 Cor. xi. 20), the thing, the celebration of the first day of the week as that on 
which the Lord brake the bands of death, and became the head of a new crea- 
tion, called therefore sometimes ἀναστάσιμος ἡμέρα, ---- this was as old as Christian- 
ity itself (John xx. 24-29; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7; Epistle of Barnabas, 
ce. 11).᾽ A refutation of the interpretation as ‘‘ the day of the Lord’s coming ”’ 
is given in Alford. 


XXVI. Ver. 12. ἑπτὰ λυχνίας χρυσιᾶς. 


Alford notes the change from the seven-branched candlestick of the temple, 
as symbolizing the loss of outward unity, so that ‘‘ each local church has now 
its own candlestick.”” So Trench: ‘‘ The Christian Church is at once ‘the 
Church’ and the ‘ churches.’ ’”’ Plumptre: ‘‘ What he needed was to bring out 
clearly the individuality of each society.’’ Tait: ‘‘ These candlesticks were of 
gold, to denote the preciousness of every thing connected with the Church, and, 
we may add, the beauty of the Church and her holy services.”’ 


XXVIII. Ver. 20. ἄγγελοι τῶν ἑπτὰ εκκλησιῶν. 


In harmony with Diist., Gebhardt (p. 39): ‘‘‘The angel of the church’ 
represents it as a unity, an organization, as a moral person, a living whole, in 
which one member depends upon and affects the others, in which a definite 
spirit reigns, and by which one church is distinguished from another.”’ Lange: 
““ The personified character or life-picture of the Church.”’ 

Weiss (Bibl. Theol. of N. T., ii. 270) regards the angels of the churches as 
‘their protecting angels.”? Alford’s long argument is to the same effect. 

Supporting the view that the angels are the superintendents, pastors, or 
bishops, are: Cremer (Lexicon): “ΤῸ see in ἄγγελοι here a personification of 
the spirit of the community in its ‘ideal reality’ (as again Diisterdieck has 
recently done), is not merely without any biblical analogy, —for such a view 
derives no support from Dan. x. 13, 20; Deut. xxxii. 8; LX X., — but must also 
plainly appear an abstraction decidedly unfavorable to the import and effect of 
the epistles. It would have been far more effective, in this case, to have written 
τῇ ἐν... ἐκκλησία γράψον. Assuming the ayy. τῶν ἐκκλησ. to be those to whom 
the churches are intrusted, the only question is, To what sphere do they belong, 
the terrestrial or the super-terrestrial ? Their belonging to the earthly sphere is 
supported above all by the address of the epistles; secondly, by the circum- 
stance that the writer of the Apocalypse could not act as messenger between 
two super-terrestrial beings (cf. Rev. i. 1, xxii. 6); and, further, by the consid- 
eration that, as the candlesticks, so also the stars, must belong to one and the 
same sphere. But, if by this expression we are to understand men, it is natural 
to think of Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. v. 2; and that, too, so that these ἐπίσκοποι or 
πρεσβύτεροι are those whose business it is to execute the will or commission 
of the Lord, in general as well as in special cases, to the churches, as those 
whom the Lord has appointed representatives of the churches, and to whom he 
has intrusted their care: cf. Acts xx. 28; Mal. ii. 7.’ Stier: ‘‘ Persons who 


126 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


stood before the Lord’s view, as the representative leaders of the church, with 
or without prominent office, but in prominent spiritual position, and therefore 
assumed to be the receivers of that which was to be said in the church. They 
are by no means collectively the ‘ teaching order,’ or ‘ the eldership,’ or any thing 
of the kind, but actual individual persons.’’ Philippi (/Circhl. Glaubenlehre, 
v. 3, 287): ‘* The ἄγγελος here is neither to be spiritualized as the personifica- 
tion of the spirit of the congregation, nor also to be taken collectively as the 
entire official body, or presbytery, of the church. But, as the spirit of the con- 
gregation is represented in the presbytery, so was the spirit of the presbytery in 
its official body, or bishop; and therefore he also, as not merely the official, but, 
at the same time, the spiritual summit of the entire body, is chiefly responsible 
for its spirit.’’ Luthardt: ‘‘ God’s messengers, who speak in God’s name, 
therefore here die Vorsteher.’’ 'Trench argues at length (pp. 75-83) that the 
term can refer only to a bishop, and that, too, ‘‘not merely a ruling elder, a 
primus inter pares, with only such authority and jurisdiction as the others, his 
peers, have lent him.’? Plumptre: ‘‘ The word ‘angels’ might well commend 
itself, at such a time, as fitted to indicate the office for which the received ter- 
minology of the Church offered no adequate expression. Over and above its 
ordinary use, it had been applied by the prophet whose writings had been 
brought into a new prominence by the ministry of the Baptist, to himself as a. 
prophet (Mal. i. 1), to the priests of Israel (Mal. ii. 7), to the forerunner of the 
Lord (Mal. iii. 1). It had been used of those whom, in a lower sense, the Lord 
had sent to prepare his way before him (Luke ix. 52), and whose work stood on 
the same level as that of the seventy. Here, then, seemed to be that which met 
the want. So far as it reminded men of its higher sense, it testified that the 
servants of God, who had been called to this special office, were to ‘lead on 
earth an angel’s life;’ that they, both in the liturgical and the ministerial 
aspects of their work, were to be as those who, in both senses, were ‘ minister- 
' ing spirits’ in heaven (Heb. i. 14). It helped also to bring the language of the 
Revelation into harmony with that of the great apocalyptic work of the Old 
Testament, the prophecy of Daniel. On the other hand, we need not wonder 
that it did not take a permanent place in the vocabulary of the Church. The 
old associations of the word were too dominant, the difficulty of distinguishing 
the new from the old too great, to allow of its being generally accepted.”’ Tait: 
**This name is not, certainly, applied elsewhere in the New Testament to a 
bishop, nor is it applied to a presbyter; but it is in perfect accord with the sym- 
bolical character of the book in which it occurs, and is admirably adapted to 
express the nature of the office, and the responsibilities of those to whom the 
spiritual charge of the several churches was committed.”’ 


CHAP. II. 127 


CHAPTER II. 


Instead of the rec. ᾿Εφεσίνης, ver. 1, Griesbach already, according to prepon- 
derating testimonies, has written ἐν ’Egéow. In this way, the designation of 
place is to be read in the superscriptions of all seven epistles: cf., ver. 8, the 
variation ἐκκλ. Σμυρναίων; likewise iii. 14. But it is doubtful whether, instead of 
τῆς (2, 3, 6, 7, al., Verss., Griesb., Tisch., etc.), Lach. has correctly written τῶ 
(cf. already Beng.). This τῷ, Lach. has, besides, in ver. 1, where A, C, testify 
to it; also ver. 8 (where, however, C has neither τῷ nor τῆς). Yet the authority 
of A, which C once contradicts, and with which, at least once, it does not agree, 
seems too weak to compel the removal of the scarcely unnecessary τῆς, which is 
certain also in most MSS. δὲ has it throughout. Bengel’s opinion (Gnomon 
on ver. 1) that the τῷ (vv. 1, 12, 18), or the τῆς, was chosen in accord with the 
contents of the epistle, is refuted by the testimonies which allow it to be read 
only in the way proposed by Lach. — Ver. 2. The σου after κόπον (rec.) is absent 
in A, C, Vulg., al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], and is defended by B, &, not 
against exegetical considerations. — Instead of ἐπειράσω (Erasm., rec.) read 
ἐπείρασας, according to A, B, Ὁ, &, 2, 6, 7, al., with Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. 
[W. and H.]. Instead of the rec. φάσκοντας εἶναι dnoordAove, read λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς 
ἀποστόλους, according to A, B, &, 18, 25, al. (cf. ver. 20), with Griesb., Lach. 
[W. and H.]; and that, too, without the addition of εἷναι (cf. ver. 9), which 
Beng., Matth., Tisch., have according to 6, 7, 8, 9, al., Verss., Primas, Andr. — 
Ver. 3. The rec., with its two pairs of members, καὶ éBaor. κ. ὕπομον. ἔχεις and 
καὶ διὰ τ, ὄνομ. μ. κεκοπίακας καὶ ov κέκμηκας, originates from an interpreter. 
According to ἃ more correct reading, the parallelism of members falls away, as 
it should be καὶ ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις, καὶ ἐβάστασας διὰ τὸ ὀνομά pov (A, B, C, 2, 3, 4, al., 
Verss., Beng., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), καὶ ov κεκοπίακες (A, 
C, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), for which latter form (cf. ver. 4, ἀφῆκες in C), 
Beng. has written κεκοπίακας, Mill (Prol., 1109) and Griesb. have preferred éxo- 
πίασας (2, 3, 4, 8, al., Andr., Areth.), which, however, is introduced because of 
the aor. éBaor, — Ver. 5. Rec., ἐκπέπτωκας (Andr.), against A, C, 2, 4, al., Verss., 
Areth., which have πέπτωκας (Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch.) [πέπτωκες, W. and 
H.]. — The ταχύ (Var., τάχει, Erasm., Steph., 1, 3, Beng.) in Complut., Steph., 2, 
against A, C, δὲ, Vulg., al., Lach., Tisch., originates from a comparison with 
ver. 16, ili. 11, etc. — Ver. 7. The false form νικοῦντι is received by Lach. It is, 
of course, noteworthy that this is found also at ver. 17 in A; nay, even there, 
according to Lach., also in C; so that it can scarcely be a slip of the pen. — 
Instead of ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παραδεΐσου (rec.), read ἐν τῳ mapad., according to all impor- 
tant witnesses (Beng., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — The omis- 
sion of the μου after θεοῦ (rec., Lach., Tisch., IX. [W. and H.]) is favored by 
A, C, 8; on the other hand (Beng., Griesb., Matth., Tisch.), 2, 4, 6, 7, al., 
Vulg., Syr., Aeth., Orig., Cypr., al., are for its reception, as well as what is 
decisive, viz., the circumstance that the theological interests would be easily 
opposed to the μου; as, e.g., Arethas expressly remarks, with a reference to John 


128 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


xx. 17, that the expression τ. θεοῦ μου contains nothing offensive. Cod. 26 
(Wetst.) has changed the not-favored pov into cov, — Ver. 9. τὰ ἔργα καὶ, Rec. 
(8) against A, C, 19, Vulg., Copt., Aeth. (Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). 
Also, in ver. 13, the addition has entered from ver. 2, 19, iii. 1, 8, 15. — Before 
the τῶν Aey., an ἐκ is to be supplied in the rec. (A, B, Ὁ, &, 2, 6, 7, al., Verss., 
Beng., etc.). — Ver. 10. Instead of μηδὲν (Vulg., rec., 8, Beng., Tisch.), read uf, 
(A, B, C, 8, Andr., Lach. [W. and H.]. — The particle 67, after ἰδού (2, 4, 6, 8, 
al., Areth., Compl., Matth., Tisch.), may be regarded as a stylistic addition 
which does not correspond to the literary character of the Apoc. Lach. agrees 
with the rec. (8, Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), which does not have the 67. — The 
rec. ἕξετε (Vulg., δὲ: ἕξεται; Beng., Griesb., Matth., Tisch.) can stand against 
the reading ἔχητε (A, Lach. [W. and H.]) the less, as C also, by its ἔχεται (accord- 
ing to Wetst.: ἔχετε), testifies to this. — Ver. 13. The omission of the καὶ before 
ἐν τ, i. (2, 4, 6, 7, al., in Wetst., five codd., Ὁ. Matth., δὲ, Syr., Aeth., Ar., 
Compl., Beng., Matth., Tisch., against A, C, Vulg., rec., Lach.), and, afterwards, 
the omission of the ὅς in some few codd. in Wetst. and Beng. (so Luth.; cf., 
also, Ewald), should serve for a relief of the construction which essentially 
depends thereon, whether after the ἡμέραις, ἐν αἷς (Andr., rec., Beng., Griesb.), 
or aic (2, 4, 6, 9, al., in Wetst., four codd. in Matth.; so Matth., Tisch.), or ἐμαὶς 
(Erasm., Luth.), or, finally, all this fall away (A, C, Vulg., Copt., Treg., Lach., 
Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]). It is possible for the αἱς to fall away because of the 
preceding ἡμέραις, but the addition is more probably meant to aid the construc- 
tion. — Ver. 14. The ὅτι (A, δὲ, rec., Tisch., IX.) comes from vv. 4, 20. — τῷ 
Bad, So Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], according to A, C. A correction 
is τὸν, B (rec.); through reiteration from ἐδίδασκεν, arise the var. ἐν τῷ, B 
(Luther), ‘‘ through Balak.’ Cf., also, Winer, p. 213. — Ver. 15. The art. before 
Νικὸλ. (rec., δὲ, Tisch. IX.) is to be deleted (A, C, 6, 11, al., Lach., Tisch. [W. 
and H.]). — Instead of ὃ μισῶ (rec., Beng.), read ὁμοίως, C, A, 8, many minusc., 
Vulg., Syr., Andr., Areth., al., Beng. in Gnom., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. 
[W. and H.]. The compounds, ὁμοίως ὁ μισ. and du. ἣν μισ. (cf. Wetst., Beng.), 
are also found. — Ver. 16. After μεταν., the οὗν (A, C, minusc., Griesb., Matth., 
Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]) is absent in the rec., but also in &, Tisch. 1X. — 
Ver. 17. The gloss φαγεῖν ἀπὸ, before τοῦ pay. (rec. against the prevailing testi- 
monies), is in no way supported by Arethas (cf. Matth.). — For éyvw (rec.), read 
oidev (A, Β, Ὁ, &, 2, al., Beng., etc.). — Ver. 18. The αὐτου, after ὀφθαλμ. (cf. i. 
14), is to be erased (A, C, Lach.). Likewise, ver. 19, the καί before τὰ εσχ. --- 
Ver. 20. From ver. 14, ὀλίγα is introduced (rec., 8: πολύ): against A, C, many 
minusc., Verss., Beng., Griesb., etc. Instead of the explanatory ἐᾶς (rec.}, read 
ἀφεῖς (A, C, δὲ» minusce., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), whence, 
also, the emendations, ἀφίης, ἀφῆκας, are derived. — The rec.: yur, Ἰεσαβ. (Beng., 
Treg. [W. and H.]) is sufficiently supported by C, δὲ, Vulg., and, in an exegeti- 
cal respect, to be decidedly preferred to the reading σοὺ ’leo. (many minusc., in 
Wetst., and Matth., Griesb., Tisch.). — The rec.: τὴν λέγουσ. is, like the variation 
7 λέγει (in Wetst.), an interpretation of the correct ἡ λέγουσα (A, C, &, Beng., 
Griesb., etc.). — καὶ διδάσκει καὶ πλανᾷ, So, according to A, C, δὲ, many minusc., 
Syr., Copt., Compl., already Beng., Griesb. The rec.: διδάσκειν καὶ πλανᾶσθαι 
(Vulg.: docere et seducere) is an alteration which Areth. more correctly attains 
by his dud. x. πλανᾶν. --- Ver. 21. Instead of καὶ οὐ θέλει (ovK ἠθέλησεν, A), μετανοῆσαι 
ἐκ τῆς πορν. avt. (A, C, minusc., Verss., Beng., Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. 
[W. and H.]), the rec. has the ἐκ τ. πορν. ait. before καὶ ob, and then only μετανό- 
σεν. The shortest, and perhaps original, reading is that of δὲ; : ἵνα μεταν. éx τ. 


CHAP. II. 129 
Ι 

πορν. ταύτης. -- Ver. 22, The ἐγώ before βάλλω (rec.) is incorrect (A, C, 2, 4, al., 
Beng., Griesb., etc.). The καλῶ in the δὲ isa clerical error. — For κλίνην, A has 
the poor gloss ¢vAaxjv. — The modification épy. αὑτῶν (rec.) is found already in A, 
against B, &, 2, 3, ete. ; αὐτῆς is rejected already by Beng. and Griesb. — Ver. 24, 
Instead of καὶ λοιπ. (rec.), read τοὶς Aum, (A, C, al., Beng., Griesb., etc.; cf. the 
variations καὶ τοῖς λοιπ.), The καὶ before οἵἴτενες is incorrect (A, Ὁ, δὲ, Vulg., al., 
Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — The fut. βαλῶ (rec., 8; cf. Vulg., 
Primas) is an explanation of the correct reading βάλλω (A, Ὁ, al., Matth., Lach., 
Tisch. [W. and H.]). — Ver. 27. συντρίβεται. So, correctly, (A, C, δ), the recen- 
sions and later editions, The var. συντριβήσεται (2, 3, 4, 6, al., Vulg., Syr., 
Compl.) is an inept explanation (cf. Luth., Soll er sie zerschmeissen), which 
Areth. wishes to justify exegetically by making the ὡς not comparative but final. 


All seven epistles (chs. ii. and iii.)! are not only like one another in their 
dependence upon the same fundamental thought,” viz., the advent of the 
Lord, since they explain and apply it, as often as presented,’ in a manifold 
way; but they are also skilfully planned and forcibly elaborated according 
to a scheme.* The epistles naturally fall into three chief divisions, — title, 
body of the epistle, and conclusion. Since what are properly the super- 
scriptions proceed from the command of the Lord, in whose name John is to 
write, the titles contain after the uniform introductory formula Τάδε λέγει, ex- 
pressed after the manner of the ancient prophets,® such a self-designation of 
Christ speaking to the churches as agrees with the visionary revelation,® or 
with the designation of the Lord placed at the head of the book,’ and by its 
consolations, warnings, and threats, is significant with respect to the contents 
themselves of the epistles. What is properly the epistle is always opened with 
a prominent presentation of the fact that the Lord knows all the relations of 
his churches (οἶδα, «.7.4.); then, connected with this are praise and reproof, 
the statement of present and future perils and troubles, and an admonition 
to repentance, encouragement, consolation, warning, threats, in accordance 
with the circumstances presented. The conclusion is always divided into 
two parts, and has a decidedly very general significance, so that each indi- 
vidual epistle calls to mind the more general meaning 10 found in the whole 
seven. The two members of the conclusion contain exhortations directed to 
every one who has ears to hear the address of the Spirit to the churches, and 
a promise to victors, pointing to the final completion of Christ’s kingdom; 
so that thus, even in these closing verses, there is an intimation of the goal 
before all Apoc. prophecy, —the coming of the Lord. It is, besides, to be 
remarked concerning both these members," that in the first three epistles 
the exhortation precedes and the promise follows,!? while in the last four 
epistles the order is reversed; 1? so that the number seven seems intentionally 


1 Cf. Heinrichs, ii. p.195 sqq. Zzcurs.I., 8 Cf. ii. land 5, 8 and 10, 12 and 16, 18 and 
De Sept. illis Epp. Apocalypt. 23, 27. 
= CEA; Fz 9 ji. 2-6, 9, 10, 13-16, 19-25, iii. 1-4, 8-11, 18- 
8 ji. 5, 16, iii. 5, 11, 20. 20. 
4 Cf.also Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., 10 Cf. on i. 20. 
Ebrard. ' 11 Cf. Beng., Ew., De Wette, etc. 
5 Am. i.3, 6, 9, 10, 13, ii. 1, 4,6. Cf. Ewald. 42/91. 7; TT; 17: 


6 1, 12 sqq. Piso. 13 ji. 26-29, iii. 5, 6, 12, 13, 21, 22. 


130 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


resolved into three and four, as also elsewhere, although no consequence 
dare be inferred therefrom concerning the relation of the churches to each 
other. | 

Vv. 1-7. The epistle to the church (the angel of the church, cf. i. 20) at 
Ephesus. 

Ver. 1. Ephesus, vying with Smyrna (ver. 8) and Pergamos (ver. 12) 
for the precedence in Asia, is called πρώτη μητρόπολις 5 (first metropolis). 
But neither does this political relation determine the precedency of the 
three churches, nor is Ephesus named at the head of them all as the proper 
residence of John, as Hengstenb. asserts under the presumption of the Apos- 
tolic-Johannean authenticity of the Apoc.: cf. on i. 11. — At Ephesus, which, 
in the times of the Apostle Paul, was the chief city of Ionia, lying on the 
Cayster and near the sea, known for its worship of Diana,’ and especially 
distinguished for its trade and fine Grecian culture,* and at present in ruins, 
alongside of which is the village of Ajosoluk,® Paul had collected a congre- 
gation of Jews, and especially of heathen, and had cherished it with great 
love. At his departure he spoke of the dangerous errors with which the 
churches would be visited,’ of which there is still no trace in the Epistle to 
the Ephesians, not even in Eph. iv. 14, v. 6. At the time of 1 Tim. i. 3, 
Timothy was superintending the church there: many expositors who regard 
the ‘‘angel” of the church as the bishop imagine, therefore, under a double 
error, that our Apocalyptic epistle is directed to Timothy.® Cf. also Intro- 
duction, sec. 8. The designation of the Lord, in whose name the prophet 
writes, is from i. 13, 16, only that instead of ἔχων we find now κρατῶν τ. ἕπτ. 
dot., so that Christ is presented as though he held the stars fast,® protecting 
and supporting them, so that it depends only upon him,?° if possibly by an 
act of judgment he cast them out of his hand." So, also, is the περιπατῶυ, k.7.2,, 
in comparison with i. 18, where Christ appears altogether in the midst of the 
candlesticks. Yet even in the περιπατεῖν there does not lie so much the idea 
of walking to and fro, as rather that his presence is a living and actual one.!2 
— The entire designation of Christ, which in general expresses his essential 
relation to the churches, occurs on that account fittingly in the frst of the 
seven epistles, which, indeed, form not a mere aggregate of accidental indi- 
vidualities, but, as the number seven already shows, an important unity. 
Even in the manifestation of Christ, what first meets the eyes of the seer is 
how the Lord is in the midst of the candlesticks.18 In no way, therefore, 
does “this item inwardly and strictly cohere with the metropolitan posi- 


1 Hengstenb. 6 Acts xviii. 19, xix. 1 sqq., xx. 17 sqq. 
2 Cf. Wolf. 7 Acts xx. 22 sqq. 
3 Acts xix. 8 So the expositors whom N. de Lyra men- 


4 In Plautus (Mil. Glor., iii. 1, 42 sqq.), a tions, but does not indorse (Viegas, Alcasar, 
witty fellow (cavillus lepidus, facetus) ex- C.a Lap, etc. Not so, Ribera, Stern). 


cuses himself for having been born at Ephesus; 9 ji. 25, iii. 11. 
and not without cause does the apostle warn 10 John x. 28. 
the Ephesians (v. 4) of εὐτραπελία. 11 Cf, ver. 5, iii. 16. 
5 Cf. Th. Smith, Septem Asiae Ecclesiarum 12 Cf. Lev. xxvi. 12; Sir. xxiv. 5. 
Notitia, Oxon., 1672; Ziillig, Betgabe, 2; 13 4, 13. 


Winer, Realworterb., i. 389. 


CHAP. II. 2. 131 


tion of the Ephesian congregations as the universal type of the apostolical 
church.”’? 

Ver. 2. Ta ἔργα σου are not “Christian deeds of heroism against false 
teachers,” as Hengstenb. thinks;? who, partly because of the otherwise inex- 
plicable ver. 4, partly in order not to maintain a repetition with respect to 
the ὑπομονῇ, ver. 3, and partly because of ver. 6,8 understands all of vv. 2, 3, 
as referring to conduct towards false teachers, the κόπος as work against 
them, while the ὑπομονῇ, ver. 2, signifies “active” and ver. 3 “ passive’’ pa- 
tience in suffering, which true confessors experience because of their zeal 
against them. All this is arbitrary. By τὰ ἔργα σου, the external activity in 
general, whereby the Church manifests its inner life, is designated. The 
works (‘“ fruits,” Matt. vii. 16 sqq.) cannot be evil (vv. 6, 22, iii. 1, 15, xvi. 
11, xviii. 6; cf. Rom. ii. 6 sqq.). It is the entire —and here praiseworthy + 
— conversation of the church,® including their bearing under suffering,® that 
is here meant. This is shown by what follows, where the works are more 
accurately explained in a twofold respect, καὶ τὸν κόπον κ. τ. ὑπομ. cov and καὶ 
ὅτι ov δύνῃ βαστ. κακ.Ἷ Just because the cov does not stand after κόπον, but 
only after (τ. κοπ. καὶ) τ. ὑπομονὴν (1. 14), these two ideas cohere the more inti- 
mately, but not as hendiadys;® while as the second point the καὶ ob δύνῃ, x.7.2., 
is rendered prominent.® Just as in 1 Cor. xv. 58, the κόπος of believers with 
their firm steadfastness is required for realizing the ἔργον of the Lord, both 
are here mentioned; viz., the κόπος, i.e., the toilsome labor,!° and the ὑπομονῆ, 
i.e., the necessary patient perseverance, as a chief item in the ἔργα.1 The 
κόπος, together with the ὑπομονῇ, refers to all wherein believers fulfil their 
peculiar holy task with divine and spiritual power and endurance, —a work 
which, in its most manifold forms, is always combined with hardship (κόπος), 
and therefore cannot be fulfilled without ὑπομονῇ, as this is essentially and 
necessarily conditioned by the antagonism between the kingdom of Christ 
and the world. — The second commendation 13 is, that the Lord knows the 
“works” of the church at Ephesus, that it “cannot bear them which are 
evil” (κακούς without the article). Concerning the form δύνῃ, cf. Wetstein 
and Winer. The βαστάζειν makes us think of the κακοί as a heavy burden.14 
The expression κακούς 15 designates those meant properly according to their 
perverted and worthless nature, which, however, in the sense of the prophet, 
already according to the O. T. view, cannot be estimated otherwise than by 
the measure of the positive divine norm. Thus “they which are evil” are 
in some sort of contradiction to the divine truth, whereby the inner and out- 
ward life of believers is determined; hence the actual intolerance towards 
them, or 156 the necessary hatred of their godless nature.17 — καὶ ἐπειρασας τ. rey. 


1 Ebrard. 2 Cf. also Heinr. 11 Cf. also, in xiv. 15, the correlation of the 
3 See exposition of verse. general ἔργον and the more definite κόπος. 
4 Without saying, therefore, that I approve 12 Cf. also ver. 6. 
the οἶδα (N. de Lyra). 13 Mark ix. 22. 
5 Ew., De Wette, Ebrard. 14 2 Kings xviii. 14; Matt. xx. 12; Gal. vi. 2; 
6 Calov. 7 Cf. Ew. Acts xvi. 10, 28. 
8 Grot., Heinr. 15 Not πονηρούς. See on xvi. 2. 
9 Against Ebrard. 16 Ver. 6. 


10 Cf. 1 Thess. i, 3, ii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 5. 17 Cf. Ps. cxxxix. 21 sqq. 


132 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 


éavt. ἀποστόλους, x.1.2. The praiseworthy conduct of the church towards those 
that are evil, who are here more accurately designated as false teachers, is 
still further acknowledged (until ψευδεῖς). Πειράζειν, synonymous with δοκιμά- 
ev! and correlate with τό δοκίμιον, δοκίμον γένεσθαι,2 is more the practical putting 
to the test, the trial from living experience. In 1 John iv. 1, where the ques- 
tion is treated solely with respect to a definite confession, δοκιμάζειν properly 
occurs: in this place, on the other hand, the πειράζειν indicates that works espe- 
cially 8 come into consideration. Hence the connection of our false apostles 
with the false prophets, 1 John iv.,* is inapposite. — Those here meant call 
themselves apostles, and yet are not; so the result of the proof is that they 
are found liars. ‘Those men must, therefore, like the false apostles at Cor- 
inth,® have professed themselves as sent immediately from the Lord himself.® 
If in so doing they should have appealed to their intercourse with Christ as 
long as he was on earth,?— which, however, is not indicated, —it would of 
course follow that “that was the apostolic age.” But, at any rate, this 
declaration has sense only at the time which occurs about the Pauline pe- 
riod, i.e., possibly up to the destruction of Jerusalem; but not at the end of 
the first century, where a trace nowhere occurs of a false teacher Jaying claim 
to apostolic authority. — As to the character of the false teachers, cf. ver. 6. — 
[See Note XXVIII, p. 155.] | 

Ver. 3. As in ver. 2 (καὶ ἐπείρασας, «.7.4.) that is amplified which was 
briefly indicated by the words καὶ ὅτι οὐ δύνῃ βαστάσαι κακούς, So NOW, also, the 
first point of the acknowledgment (τ. κοπ. «. τ. ὕπομ. cov) is developed on a 
definite side, and that, too, so that not only with ὑπομονὴν ἔχεις the above 
ὑπομονὴν σου is again taken up, but also the ἐκβάστασας διὰ τ. ὄν. μου ὃ is placed 
in a significant antithesis to the οὐ δύνῃ βαστάσαι κακούς, and by the καὶ οὐ Kexo- 
miaxec® it is indicated that the κόπος of believers furnished with the right 
ὑπομονῇ has resulted neither in succumbing nor weariness. Beng.: “I know 
_ thy labor; yet thou dost not labor, i.e., shalt not be broken down by 
labor.” 19 . 

Vv. 4, 5. In sharp antithesis to the praise,!! follows (ἀλλὰ) the declaration 
of what the Lord has against the church; 12 viz., that it has left, i.e, given. 
up, its first love.18 The πρώτην is not to be taken as comparative, nor is it to 
be inferred in the sense in itself correct, that the Greek superlative has a 
comparative force;14 rather, the love is regarded as actually the first, ie., 
that which was actually present at the beginning of the life of faith.1* This 
ἀγάπη certainly is not “the sedulous care and vigilance with fervor and zeal 
for the purity of the divine word against false prophets,” 16 which is impos- 
sible already, because of ver. 2 (δύνῃ pres.). Opposed to this, but just as 


1 2 Cor. xiii. 5. 10 Of. Vitr., Wolf., Ew., Ebrard, etc. 

21 Pet. i. 6; Jas. i. 2, 12. 11 Vv. 2, 3. 

8 Cf. ver. 6. 4 Hengstenb. 12 Cf. Matt. v. 29. 

δῷ Core xi. 14,23; : 13 De Wette. Cf. Rom. ἱ. 27; Mark vii. 8; 
6 Not from the church at Jerusalem (Ewald). Prov. iv. 13, where is the contrary φυλάσσειν. 
7 Beng. 14 Ew., Winer, p. 229. 

8 Cf. Matt.x.22; Luke xxi.17; John xv. 21. 15 Cf. N. de Lyra, Areth., De Wette, Heng- 


9 Cf. Isa. xl. 81; Ps. vi. 7; John iv.6; Matt. stenb., Ebrard, Ew. ii., ete. 
xi. 28. 16 Calov. Cf. also Vitr. 


CHAP. II. 4, 5. 158 
inappropriate, is the explanation of Eichhorn: “ You are restraining the 
wicked teachers, too captiously and severely.” The reference appears spe- 
cially to apply to the care of the poor;! it is altogether difficult to regard it 
alone of brotherly love,? but of that only so far as it is the manifestation of 
love to God and Christ, which the indefinite expression may suggest. Ziil- 
lig and Hengstenb. have properly recalled Jer. ii. 2. The lovely description 
of the fellowship of believers with God as that of a bridal or marriage rela- 
tion 8 is particularly applicable to the foundation of the grace of God appear- 
ing in Christ,‘ and still to be hoped for from him. Against this exposition 
an appeal cannot therefore be made ® to vy. 2, 3; since even where the /jirst 
_ love has vanished, and works springing only from the purest glow of this 
first love are no longer found (ver. 5), the power of faith and love to the 
Lord is still sufficient for the works praised in vv. 2 and 3.—‘To the re- 
proof (ver. 4) is added the call to repentance, and, in case this do not occur,’ 
the threatening of judgment. The remembrance® of the first better con- 
dition, whence as from a moral elevation the church had fallen,® should 
cause a penitential return and the doing of the first works, as they formerly 
gave testimony to that first love (ver. 4). In this line of thought, the πόθεν 
πέπτωκας cannot mean “the loss of salvation you have experienced.” 1° The 
threat (xv. τ. Avyv., «.7.A.) is expressed, not only in accordance with the desig- 
nation of the speaking Lord, ver. 1, but also (épy. coc) in connection with the 
prophetic fundamental thoughts of the entire book, as both are inwardly 
combined with one another, as Christ is the one who is to come, according to 
his relation described in ver. 1} to his church (and the world). But since 
John states the particular judgment upon an individual congregation as a 
coming of the Lord, which yet is not identical with his final coming, the 
peculiar goal of all prophecy, the prophet himself shows how he associates 
the individual preliminary revelations of judgment with the full conclusion 
in the final judgment, as well as distinguishes them from one another.!2_ But 
the distinction dare not be urged in such a way that the eschatological refer- 
ence of the ἔρχομαι vanishes.88— Concerning the dat. incomm. ooi,!4 οἵ. Winer, 
p- 147. --- κι κινήσω τ. λυχνίαν σου, x.7.A., designates, according to the rule under- 
lying the whole representation, nothing else than: “I will cause thee to 
cease to be the church.” 16 Ewald, unsatisfactorily: “I will withdraw my 
grace and kindness from thee.” Grotius, incorrectly: “I will cause thy 
people to flee another way; viz., to those places where there will be greater 


1 Grot., Ewald. Cf. also Heinr. on ver. 5. 
2 Heinr., De Wette, Ebrard. 
3 Cr. Hos. ii. 15 sqq. 
4 Eph. v. 25, 32. 
5 Rev. xix. 9, xxii. 17. 
6 Ebrard. 
1 εἰ δὲ μη. Cf. Winer, p. 508: ἐὰν μὴ μετ- 
ανοήσης; ἃ8 Once more made expressly promi- 
nent at the close. Cf. Winer, p. 568. 

8 μνημον., iii. 3. 

% Cf. also Rom. xi. 11, 22, xiv. 4; 1 Cor. x. 
12; Heb. iv. 11. N. de Lyra, Pric., Eichh., 
Stern, De Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 


10 Kypke, Bretschneider, Zex. on this word, 
by presupposing the false reading ἐκπέπτ., 
which, according to linguistic usage, more 
readily offers the conception of something 
lost. 

11 Cf. i. 12 sqq. 

12 Cf. also De Wette, ete. 

13 Against Klief. 

14 11,16. Cf. iii. 3, ἐπὶ σὲ. 

15 1, 12 sqq., 20. Cf. to xuv., vi. 14. 

16 Aretius. Cf. Heinr., De Wette, Stern, 
Hengstenb., etc. 


134 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


care for the poor.” ! Zeger, and many others who regard the angel as the 
bishop of the church, incorrectly: “I will take the church from thee, that 
thou no longer preside over it.” Ν , 

Ver. 6. Not for the purpose of alleviating the pain of the church con- 
cerning the reproof of ver. 4,2 but because the Lord’s love for his church 
gladly recognizes what is to be properly acknowledged, and once more, but 
in a new and more definite way, makes prominent in opposition to ver. 4 sqq. 
(ἀλλά) the one point of commendation already in ver. 2. Just because the 
church was rejected for no longer having the jirst love to their Lord, is it 
once more expressly acknowledged that it is still so far of one mind with 
him, as to hate the wicked works which he hates. Thus ver. 6 has enough 
that is peculiar, as not to appear a mere repetition of ver. 2, and contains no 
marks whatever whereby vv. 2, 3, are to be understood in the sense of Heng- 
stenberg. — With τοῦτο ἔχ. neither ἀγαθόν, nor the like, is used to complete the 
construction: the explanation of the τοῦτο in ὅτι wo., κιτ.λ., Shows that the com- 
mon possession is commendable. — The μισεῖς is not “a strong expression for 
censuring,”? but is just as earnestly meant as the μισῶ But it is justly 
remarked already by N. de Lyra,® that the hatred is directed not against the 
persons, but against the works.*— Concerning the Nicolaitans,’ as well con- 
cerning their name as also their conduct, it is possible to judge only by a 
comparison with ver. 14 sqq. JIrenaeus,§ Hippolyt.,? Tertullian,!° Clemens 
Alex.,4 Jerome,!2 Augustine,!* and other Church Fathers derive the sect from 
a founder Nicolaus, and that, too, the deacon mentioned in Acts vi. 5, of 
whom they have more to relate as they are more remote from him in time. 
That this is derived entirely from this passage, and is of no more importance 
than that according to which the Ebionites are represented as springing 
from a certain Ebion,‘ is shown, first, from the fluctuation of the tradition 
which also knew how to defend that church officer, so highly commended 
in Acts, from the disgrace of having founded a troublesome sect,}* and, 
secondly, from the circumstance that the patristic tradition, from the very 
beginning, refers to Rey. ii. 6, 14 sqq. Nicolaus of Acts vi. was thought of 
because none other of that name was known.!® Since Chr. A. Heumann,!” 
and J. W. Janus,}8 the opinion has become almost universal, that the desig- 
nation Νικολαΐται (from νικᾶν and λαός) suggests the Hebrew name Balaam 
(from ya and Dy’, i.e., swallowing-up, or destruction, of the people), whereby 


1 Cf. on ver. 4. 14 Cf. Tertullian, 1. c. 33. 

2 Grot., Hengstenb. 15 Cf. Clemens Alex. 

3 De Wette. 16 Against Ebrard and Klief., who, as well as 

4 Cf. on ver. 2. Grot., Calov., and the older and Catholic ex- 

5 Cf. also Hengstenb., etc. positors in general, hold to the patristic state- 

6 Cf.ii.14. Incorrectly, Calov.: ‘‘dogmas.” ment. 

7 Cf. Gieseler’s Kirchengeschichte, i.1, sec. 17 Act. Erud. Ann., 1712, p. 179; Poecile, ii. 
29; Winer, Rwbd.; literature in Wolf. 392. 

8 Haer., i. 26. 18 De Nicol. ex Haeret. Catalogo Expungen- 

9 Ref. Omn. Haer., ed. Gott., 1859, p. 408. dis. Viteb., 1123. Cf. Vitr., Wetst., Eichh., 

10 Praescr. Haer., 40. Herder, Heinrichs, who, however, is inclined 

11 Strom., ii. 20, p. 490; iii. 4, p. 522. to affirm that there was at Ephesus a Nicolaus. 

12 Adv. Lucifer, 28. Cf. also Ewald, Gesch., Jer., vii. 172 sqq., Ziil- 


13 Haer., 5. lig, Hengstenb., etc. 


ὶ CHAP. II. 7. 188 
the Balaamite nature of those Nicolaitanes is to be indicated. To this vv. 
14, 15, refer.1 Yet it cannot be positively decided whether John found the 
word used already in this sense, or was himself the first to frame it. A com- 
parison may be made with the name Armillus given to antichrist,? i.e., ἐρημό- 
Aaoc.2— The Nicolaitans are of course not identical 4 with the κακοί mentioned 
in ver. 2, since the latter expression is very general: yet, at all events, they 
belong to “them which are evil; ’’ and the idea, which in itself is highly im- 
probable, must not be inferred,’ that in vv. 2 and 6, two entirely different 
kinds of false teachers are meant, of whom the former may be regarded 
disciples of John,* or Jewish teachers,’ or strict Jewish Christians,® while 
the Nicolaitans, who, according to De Wette, etc., are again distinct from 
Balaamites,® as those of a more heathen tendency, viz, false teachers who 
surrendered themselves 19 to a false freedom.!!_ Tertullian and other Church 
fathers, N. de Lyra, and the older expositors, connect the Nicolaitans with 
the Gnostics; Hengstenb. also regards them identical with the deniers of the 
Son, in the Epistles of John, by referring the warning in John v. 21 12 to the 
ethnicizing ways of the false teachers there antagonized. But for all this, 
there is no foundation. What especially contradicts Hengstenberg’s conjec- 
ture is the fact that the (Gnostic) false teachers of the Epistles of John are 
attacked just as decidedly because of their false doctrines, as the Nicolai- 
tans of the Apoc. because of their evil deeds.18 That the aberrations are 
practical, which even Hengstenb. emphasizes, but without ground alleges 
also of the false teachers in 1 John, is shown already by ver. 2 (κακούς). We 
shall therefore have to think of the Nicolaitans as ethnicizing libertines.}4 
This is not contradicted by the fact that they assumed apostolic authority ; 
for if they possibly professed to vindicate their Christian freedom in the 
Pauline sense, they might likewise wish to be apostles like Paul.!® [See 
Note XXIX., p. 155.] 

Ver. 7. ὃ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω, «x.7.A. Formula for exciting attention.1® The 
singular οὖς by no means points, in distinction from the plural,!’ to ‘‘the 
spiritual sense of understanding,’ 18. but designates with entire simplicity 
the organ of hearing without respect to its being double. In like manner, 
in Luke xi. 34. The reference made in the summons is altogether general ; 19 
even to those who still are outside the churches, belongs what is said to the 
churches, because the entire book of Revelation, no less than the seven 
epistles which form an entire part thereof, proclaims the coming of the Lord 
as something final to the whole world. John himself, as a true prophet, 


1 Cf., on the other hand, De Wette. 13 Cf. vv. 14, 20. 
2 Cf. Commentary on 1 John ii. 18. 14 Cf. also A. Ritschl, Entst. ἃ. Altkath. Κ΄. 
8 K. Wieseler, Chronol. ἃ. apost. Zeitalt., Bonn, 1857, p. 134 sq. 

p- 263 sqq. 15 According to Volkm., the strict Judzo- 
4 Hengstenb. Christian author of the Apoc. had in mind the 
5 Ewald. 6 Eichh. Apostle to the Gentiles and his adherents. Cf. 
7 Ziill. 8 Ewald. also Hilgenfeld, Kanon, p. 228. Cf. Introduc- 
9 See on vy. 14 and 15. tion, sec. 2, note. 

10 Ewald. 16 Grotius. 
11 Cf. ver. 14 with Acts xv. 29. 17 Cf. vv. 11, 17, 29, iii. 6, 18, 22, xiii. 9. 
12 Which, however, is not ‘‘ directed against 18 Hengstenb. 


heathenism clothed in a Christian garb.” 19 Cf. xxii. 17. 


136 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


makes prominent the universal reference of his prophecy.1—7é πνεῦμα is 
neither this “divine vision,” ? nor Christ who has the Spirit,? but the Holy 
Ghost,4 who inspires John, and thus makes him a prophet. The revela- 
tion of Christ ὁ can therefore be designated also as an address of the Spirit, 
because the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ,’ and speaks in Christ’s name.® 
Yet this is conceivable only if we regard ® neither the seven epistles as merely 
a dictation of Christ, which John had only to write down, nor the entire 
book of Revelation as a mere report prepared by John of a series of pictures 
represented to him; but rather recognize the specific prophetic activity 
whereby he, as a man taught of Christ himself through his Spirit, thought 
and wrote not under a suppression, but a glorification, of his entire moral 
individuality. — The promise belongs, in its universality, to the victors; as 
the preceding summons to hear, to every one who has an ear. The hearer 
is through the prophecy to learn to be victor, and thus to be saved.!© νικῶν,}} 
as well as δίκαιος,12 is impossible. According to ili. 211% and xii. 11,44 the 
νικᾶν at the close of all seven epistles 15 designates nothing else than the 
faithful perseverance of believers, as maintained in the struggle with all 
godless and antichristian powers. So, also, the sacred reward of blessedness 
is promised the “ victor,” who is represented in many forms, abiding faithful 
to him patiently and to the end, maintaining and adhering to the words and 
commands of the Lord, etc. Cf. especially the concluding promises of the 
epistles, with the descriptions in chs. xix., xxl., xxil.— The δώσω airw with 
the inf. φαγεῖν has a somewhat different meaning from when (as, e.g., vv. 17, 
28) a definite object follows: it means, “I will grant him to eat;” 16 not, “I 
will give him to eat.” — The ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς, x.7.4., 18 not the gospel whose fruit 
is blessedness,!” nor the Holy Ghost who assures of eternal life,}§ nor Christ 
himself whose fruits are all spiritual blessings,!® and who in the holy supper 
gives his flesh to be eaten ; 7° but the antitype of the tree of life that was in 
the midst of the original earthly paradise,” the tree of life which is to refresh 
the blessed citizens of the new Jerusalem.?2 In accordance with Gen. ii. 3, 
as also this passage, the place of blessedness where the tree of life is to be 
found is called paradise.22 The addition τοῦ θεοῦ μου is not without meaning, 
since God is the Lord of paradise, the one from whom the new Jerusalem 
descends, who will dwell with men, from whose throne and that of the 
Lamb proceeds life,?4 upon communion with whom, therefore, the future bless- 


14 Where an object is mentioned, as in 1 John 


POT 3. 2 Grot. 

3 Kichh. Cf. also Heinr. ii. 18, v. 4, 5; John xvi. 33. 

AOE CAS 15 Cf, xxi. 7. 

5 j. 10, xix. 10. 16 Cf, iii. 21; John v. 26. De Wette. 


6 yy. 1-6. Cf., likewise, σώσω. 
7 Rom. viii. 9, 10. 

8 John xvi. 13 sqq. 

2 Cf: Intr., sec. 2: 

101, 3, xxii. 14. 


17 Aret. 

18 Grot. 

19 Calov., Ebrard. Cf. Victorin, Beda, Lyra. 
20 John vi. 54. Alcasar. 

21 Of. Gen. ii. 9, where the LXX., as fre- 


11 Tt should properly be explained, ‘‘ He who 
gains his case in court.”’ 

12 Hichh. Cf. also Heinr. 

13 Where it is also absolutely said of Christ 
as the head of believers. 


quently elsewhere, render Ἰ yy by & λον. 

22 xxii. 2, 14, 19. Beng., Ew., De Wette, 
Hengstenb. 

23 Cf. Luke xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. xii. 4. 

24 Cf. xxi. 2, 3, xxii. 1. 


CHAP. II. 8, 9. 137 
edness and glory of believers depend. Besides, the mediatorship of Christ 
is intimated by τ. θ. μου, since Christ who himself rewards the victor (δώσω), 
and himself sits with God upon the throne, in whom is the source of life, 
nevertheless speaks of his God and the God of believers;1 both being in 
accordance with the indivisible fundamental view of the entire N. T., that 
Christ through his obedience is exalted, through his conflict has siiauenady 
and through his sufferings has entered into the glory which was his own 
from eternity, and whereof he now makes his believers partakers, since 
he as Priest, King, and Victor makes them priests, kings, and victors.? As 
to the Apocalyptic statement of the thought, ver. 7b, cf. the Book of Enoch, 
xxxi. 1-5, xxiv. 1-11; Text. XII. Patr., p. 586; Schottgen on this passage. 

Vy. 8-11. The epistle to the church at Smyrna. — Smyrna, eight geo- 
graphical miles north of Ephesus, on a bay of the Aegean Sea, and the river 
Meles, was already in ancient times, as it is to the present, an important 
place of business. After Old Smyrna had been destroyed by the Lydians, 
New Smyrna, twenty stadia from the old place, was built, according to Pau- 
sanias by Alexander the Great, according to Strabo by Antigonus, and after- 
wards by Lysimachus, —a very beautiful city.2— Of Christian life at Smyrna 
we have, except in the Apoc., the earliest statement in the Epistle of Igna- 
tius,4 at the beginning of the second century. At that time Polycarp was 
bishop of Smyrna,’ of whose martyrdom in the year 168 the church of 
Smyrna itself has made the record.6 Many, especially the Catholic expos- 
itors,7 regard Polycarp the angel of the church ὃ mentioned in this epistle ; 
which, however, is in a chronological respect untenable, even if it should be 
admitted that the Apoc. was composed under Domitian, although Polycarp 
‘“‘had served Christ” for eighty-six years.® 

Ver. 8. The self-designation of the Lord 19 corresponds to the admonition 
and promise, vv. 10 and 11.— ἔζησεν contains by its combination with éyev, 
νεκρός the intimation that the life is a new one succeeding a victory over 
death.11. The aor. ἔζησεν 12 marks the historical fact of the resurrection, as 
the precise fact of death is designated by éyev. vexp.; cf. the aor. i. 5, 11]. 9. 
An analogy is furnished by Josephus, Life, 75: “ Of the three crucified who. 
were taken down, two died notwithstanding the care: ” (the 
third lived). 

Ver. 9. τ. θλίψιν. Altogether general.}8 
and death (ver. 10), disgrace and need, belong. 


ὁ δὲ τρίτος ἔζησεν 


To this, affliction, imprisonment, 
If it be possible for the 


1 John xx. 17. 6 Martyrium 5. Polyc. in den Edd. der 
2 i. 6, iii. 21. Cf. Phil. ii. 6 sqq.; John xvii. apostol. Vater. Cf. Euseb., //. Z., iv. 15. 
24. 7 N. de Lyra, Ribera, Alcas., C. a Lap., 


3 Cf. Wetst., Winer, Rwb. 

4 Ep.ad Smyrn., ad Polycarp. 

5 Cf. Irenaeus in Euseb., H. £., iv. 14: 
“ Πολυκ. -- ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων κατασταθεὶς εἰς τὴν 
᾿Ασίαν ἐν τῇ ἐν Σμύρνῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐπίσκοπος 
(‘* Polycarp — appointed bishop by the apostles 
in Asia, in the church at Smyrna”). Cf. iii. 
36. Tertullian, Praeser. Haer., 32: ‘It is 
reported that Polycarp was placed, by John, 
in the church of the Smyrnezans.” 


Tirni., Stern, Calov., Hengstenb., etc. 

8 j.e., bishop. Cf., to the contrary, on i. 20. 

9 Martyr., Ὁ. 9. 

10 1, 17 sqq. Cf. i. 15. 

11 xiji. 14, x. 45. Cf. Ezek. xxxvii.3; Matt. 
ix. 16; John v. 25. 

12 Cf., on the other hand, the ζῶν εἶμι, x.T.A., 
i. 18. 

13 Cf. i. 9. 


138 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


πτωχεία to be connected with the θλῖψις, and to originate from the fact that 
Christians were despoiled of their property,! yet, also,? that on account of 
their poverty the Christians were utterly helpless when their Jewish enemies 
possibly supported their calumnious charges before the heathen rulers with 
money ;2 yet this inner connection of θλῖψις, πτωχεία, and βλασφημία is in no 
way indicated, and the simple admission is sufficient, that, besides the troubles 
occasioned by Jews and heathen, the Church was under the burden of poy- 
erty. To this it is immediately added parenthetically, in a consolatory an- 
tithesis: ἀλλὰ πλούσιος ei, Viz., in spiritual goods or in God.* To endeavor to 
find here an allusion to the name Polycarp® (rich in fruit), is arbitrary. In 
what the βλασφημία which Christians had to suffer consisted, can only be con- 
jectured with any certainty if the λέγοντες ᾿Ιουδαίους εἷναι ἑαυτούς,5 from whom 
they went forth,’ are regarded not as Christians ὃ but as actual Jews; which 
the wording and the historical relations, as they were still at the time of the 
apologists, support. The carnal pride of the Jews, and their godless zeal 
for the law,® were already, at the time of Paul, the cause of their unbelief, 
and hostility to Christians which they published in false and calumnious 
charges, among which was the one brought of old,!° viz., of exciting seditions, 
which generally had the greater weight with the heathen," as this occurred 
at a time in which the Roman rulers, because of the war in Judaea, had to 
be doubly watchful and suspicious in all places.12 Even the martyrdom of 
Polycarp occurred with the essential participation of the Jews.18— As, to the 
proud claim of those who boasted of the theocratic name of Jews, the judg- 
ment is added that they are not,!4 so also what is positively said concerning 
their true nature, ἀλλὰ συναγωγὴ τοῦ σατανᾶ, contains a sharp opposition to the 
claim of being the συναγωγὴ κυρίου 15 which essentially concurs with the former 
boast. But they are rather the synagogue of Satan, because they do the 
antichristian works of Satan,1® to which also belongs the βλασφημεῖν with its 
lies and hatred.1”_ The expression συναγωγῇ, which in the N. T. only once in 
James 18 designates the Christian congregational assembly, — yet even there is 
combined not with τοῦ θεοῦ, ete., but with ὑμῶν, --- has in itself a significative 
antithesis to the true ἐκκλησία τ. θεοῦ ΟΥ̓ τ. κυρίου͵ We can scarcely suppose 
that John could have changed the expression ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, which was a 
fixed designation for the Christian Church, as it is used even of the O. T. 
people of God, into ἐκκλησία τοῦ carava.19 There is an allusion of similar 
severity in Hosea,” when he writes }!8 3 instead of Δ ΠΡ. 

Ver. 10. In reference to the θλῖψις which is to follow the present (ver. 9), 
an exhortation to fearless, faithful perseverance unto death, and a corre- 


1 Heb. x. 34. Primas, Beda, C. a Lap., 10 Luke xxiii. 2. 
Tirni, De Wette. 11 Cf. Acts xvii. 6 sqq. 
2 Hengstenb. 12 Against Hengstenb. 
3 Cf. Jas. ii. 5 sqq. Hengstenb. 13 Martyr., c. 12, 13. 
4 Cf. iii. 18; Matt. vi. 20; Luke xii. 21; 1 14 ΟἹ, 111]. 9. 
Cor. i. 5; 2 Cor. vi. 10. 15 Num. xvi. 3, xx. iv., xxxi. 16. 
5 Hengstenb. 6 Cf. on ver. 2. 16 Cf. ver. 10. 
7 éx. Winer, p. 344. 17 John viii. 41 sqq. 
8 Vitr., etc. 18 ji. 2. 
9 Cf. Rom. ii. 28; Matt. iii. 9; John viii. 33; 19 Cf. Trench, Synonymes of the N. T., § 3- 


2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 4 sqq. 20 iv. 15. 


CHAP. II. 10. 139 


sponding promise of life, are made. Troubles of many kinds (ἃ plural) 
impend; especially mentioned is imprisonment! for some of the church,? — 
the chief thing in all the persecutions in which the civil authorities were 
active, — and a view of the same is disclosed, even unto death for Christ’s 
sake.4 The mention of imprisonment shows, still more than that of death, 
that the assault of heathen magistrates who, according to ver. 9, were 
incited by the Jews, is here contemplated. The Lord therefore comprises 
both forms of antichrist. As the proper author of the afflictions, ὁ διάβολος is 
therefore mentioned,® the personal first enemy of Christ and his kingdom,® 
who uses Jews and heathen as his instruments. The significance of the 
name (slanderer) is not here to be emphasized :7 otherwise we should expect 
in ver. 9 ὁ διαβ., and in ver. 10 ὁ car, —iva πειρασθῆτε καὶ ἔχητε, 7.4. Both the 
temptation and the oppression ὃ belong to the intention of the Devil. Thus 
the πειρασμός appears not as a divine trial,® but?° as a temptation intended 
on Satan’s part for their ruin,!! in connection with which, of course, it must 
be firmly maintained,” that the Devil’s power is exercised only under the 
Divine control.18 Under this presumption, to the καὶ ἔχητε θλῖψιν, Which as the 
πειρασθῆτε is entirely dependent on iva, the ἡμερῶν δέκα is added. For the Lord 
fixes a limit of duration to the troubles which are to come upon his beliey- 
ers.14 Only a few expositors have understood the juep. δέκα of ten actual 
days,!® but even these in the sense that the short period of the calamity is 
intended as aconsolation. But the number is purely of a schematic nature,1é 
and signifies not a long 1” but a short time.1®§ [See Note XXX., p. 156.] 
The entire period of the universal tribulation is schematically represented 
by forty-two months.!9 The chief misinterpretations are known already by 
N. de Lyra: that the ten days are ten years, in which are reckoned the per- 
secution under Domitian 29 and that under Decius;7! that the ten persecu- 
tions of Christians are meant; 223 that the ten days correspond to and signify 
the Ten Commandments, and that the persecution of the entire Church will 
continue as long as the Ten Commandments are in force, 1.e., until the end 
of the world, etc. — Without any external combination, the admonition 


11 In which the Lord preserves and delivers, 
iii. 10. Cf. Luke xxii. 31. 

12 Cf. Beng., Hengstenb. 

13 Matt. iv. 1. 

14 Cf. Matt. xxix. 22. 

15 Grot., Herder. 

16 Klief: ‘‘ The number of systematic com- 
pleteness.” 

17 Beda, C.a Lap., etc., according to Job xix. 


1 Incorrectly, Heinr.: φυλ., as a part for the 
whole, designates misery of every kind. 

2 ἐξ ὑμῶν, Winer, p. 343. 

8 Acts xii. 3, xvi. 23. Ew. 

4 ἄχρι θανάτου, xii. 11; Acts xxii. 4; Phil. 
ii. 8; Heb. xii. 4. N.de Lyra, Calov., Heinr., 
Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

5 Cf. ver. 9: cuvay. τ. σατανᾶ. 

6 Chs. xii. and xiii. 


7 Against Ziill. and Hengstenb. 

8 See Critical Remarks on the modified 
var. ἕξετε. According to this, the latter was 
proclaimed as, in general, only impending. 

9 «They may be tried in order, that, amidst 
the greatest dangers, their faith may be tested, 
and thus they may show their virtue to be 
complete”? (Ew.). Cf. also Grot., Bleek, De 
Wette. 

10 Cf. Eichh., Heinr. 


3; Num. xiv. 22; 1 Sam. i. 8. 

18 Andr., Alcas., Calov., Heinr., Ew., De 
Wette. Cf.also Hengstenb., Stern; Gen. xxiv. 
55; Dan. i. 12 sqq.; Num. xi. 19. 

19 xiii. 5. 

20 Cluverus, in Calov. 

21 Vitr. ; 

22 As Ebrard infers by regarding the ten 
days as “ἃ symbol of ten special sections or 
periods in the persecution.”’ 


140 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

γίνου πιστός follows, which in the limitation ἄχρι θαν. reaches farther than has 
been thus far represented by the θλίψις. With reference to the still future 
maintenance of fidelity, the γίνου and not ἔσθιε properly stands.1— The ‘prom- 
ise, having its pledge in the Lord’s own life after death (ver. 8), has essen- 
tially no other meaning than that which is given the victor in ver. 11, as 
the victory is won only by fidelity unto death. — The καὶ which introduces the 
promise places it in connection with the eed requirement.? — τ, στέφανον 
τῆς ζωῆς. Appositive genitive,’ so that life itself appears as the crown.* The 
expression στέφανος does not mean here the crown of a king, neither in the 
sense that the coming kingdom of the faithful is indicated, nor in this, that. 
the king’s crown designates in general only “something exceedingly precious 

and glorious;”® but the figure of the victor’s crown’ is derived from the 

games, and in the mouth of the author of the Apocalypse, as well as of 

the Apostle Paul,’ is open to no objection whatever.® 

Ver. 11. The promise, which, in addition to the general command to 
hear,!° is contained in the concluding verse, is framed in accordance with 
what precedes. The victory recalls the struggle with the afflictions of per- 
secution,}2 through which there has been a victorious battle in their fidelity 
unto death.12 The victorious warrior reaches peace before the throne of God 
and the Lamb,‘ or, as here said in reference to ver. 10,45 “ He shall not be 
hurt of the second death.” On οὐ yf, cf. Winer, p. 471. — ἀδικηθῇ as vi. 6, vii. 
2,3, and often Luke x.19. ἐκ, causal, as viii. 11.1°— The second death desig- 
nates eternal damnation in hell,!7 eternal after temporal death. The expres- 
sion is derived from Jewish theology,}® but is pervaded with a meaning spe- 
cifically Christian, since they incur the second death, who have no part in 
the marriage of the Lamb, and therefore are outside of Christ.1° [See Note 
XXXI., p. 156.] 

Vv. 12-17. The epistle to the church at Pergamos. — Pergamos or Per- 
gamum in Mysia, on the river Caicus, not to be confounded with ancient 
Troy or Pergamum considerably distant to the north,?° was distinguished 
for the temple of Aesculapius, which was regarded as an asylum,”! and much 
visited not only because of its worship, but also because of tncubationes ?? and 
dream-cures,”? vying in glory with the temple of Diana at Ephesus, and the 


1 Matt. x. 16; xxiv. 44; Luke xii. 40. 

2 Luke xi. 9; Eph. v. 14; Jas. iv.7. Cf. De 
Wette, Winer, p. 406. 

3 Winer, p. 494 sqq. 


15 ἄχρι θανάτου. Cf. Matt. x. 28. 
16 Winer, p. 344. 
17 χα: ὃ, 14; xxi. 8. 


18 Targ.on Ps. xlix. 11: ‘* The wicked who 


4 Jas.i.12; 1 Pet. ν. 4. De Wette, Heng- die the second death, and are consigned to 
stenb., etc. Gehenna.” Targum of Jerusalem, on Deut. 
5 Ziill. xxxiii. 6. Cf. Wetst. 


6 Hengstenb., according to Isa. ]xii. 3, xxviii, 
3. 

7 Cf. ver. 11. 

8 2 Tim. ii. 5, iv. 7 sqq.; 1 Cor. ix. 24; Phil. 
111. 14. 

9 Against Hengstenb. 

10 Cf. ver. 7. 

τι Cf vy: 1053: 

12 Cf. John xvi. 33. 


13 2 Tim. iv. 7. 14 vii. 9 sqq. 


19 Chs. xx., Xxi. 

20 Against Ὁ, ἃ Lap., Tir. 

21 Tacitus, Annal., iii. 63. 

22 [The spending of nights in the temple of 
Aesculapius as an act of gratitude for some 
deliverance. Smith’s Dictionary Greek and 
Roman Antiquities, p. 376d. ] 

23 Terodian, Hist.,iv. 8. Cf. K.F. Hermann, 
Lehrbuch d. gottesdienstl. Alterth. d. Grie- 
chen, Heidelb., 1846, § 41. 


CHAP. II. 12, 13. 141 
sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi,! as well as for its library. By the will of the 
last and childless King Attalus, this rich place? tell to the Romans. Ac- 
cording to Pliny,? Pergamos was the seat of a Roman supreme court. The 
present Bergamo contains many relics of the ancient city. The earliest 
record of the Christian church at Pergamos is this in the Apoc. In con- 
formity with ver. 13, Tertullian * speaks of Antipas the martyr. Eusebius,® 
after having treated of Polycarp of Smyrna, makes mention of the martyrs 
in Pergamos, Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice. The “ doctores” mentioned 
by N. de Lyra held Carpus to be the bishop to whom John wrote. Others 
call the bishop of Thyatira by that name.® 

Ver. 12. The designation of Christ’ looks forward to the threat, ver. 16. 

Ver. 18. The ποῦ κατοικ. is immediately afterwards described more accu- 
rately: ὅπου ὁ 6p, τ. cat. This in itself does not contain a commendation, but 
serves aS a commendation only as the church remains faithful although 
dwelling where Satan’s seat is, which is communicated by the more emphatic 
and explicit repetition at the close of ὅπου ὁ car. κατοικεῖ.δ It is a matter of 
importance, however, that the Lord first of all simply testifies, for its conso- 
lation, to his knowledge of the nature of his church’s abode: ὅπου ὁ θρόνος τοῦ 
At all events, this? points to the city of Pergamos as the place of 
the church; and hence the explanation is incorrect, according to which the 
godless enemies of Christ and his believers are represented 19 as Satan’s 
throne.!!_ There is nothing to support the opinion 15 that Satan’s throne was 
in Pergamos as the chief abode of the worship of Aesculapius, whose symbol 
was the serpent; for if,on account of his serpent, John would have desired 
to designate Aesculapius directly as the Devil!® (which would have been 
inappropriate, as, according to 1 Cor. x. 20, that particular ἔιδωλον can be only 
one δαιμόνιον among many), he would at least have indicated it by ὁ 6p. τοῦ 
δράκοντος. We must first, with Andreas, think of a remarkable flourishing 
of idol-worship in general, if the remark of And. that Perg. was κατείδωλος 
ὑπὲρ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν πᾶσαν (given to idolatry above all Asia) would have an his- 
torical foundation. That Perg. is called the seat of Satan as the abode of 
heathen and Nicolaitans,! is partly too general, and partly contrary to the 
meaning of ver. 14. The only correct view is the reference, understood 
already by N. de Lyra, to the persecution of the church, ascribed also in 
ver. 10 to the Devil; 16 decidedly in favor of this explanation is the ὅπου ὁ car. 
κατοικεῖ in its connection with ἀπεκτάνθη παρ᾽ ὑμῖν. Only in Perg. had Satan 


σατανᾶ. 


1 Cf. Wetst. 
*? Hor, Του 00st. AZ. ΤΕ, Od xvi De 

3 H. N., v. 33: ‘* Pergamos, by far the most 
renowned of Asia. — The jurisdiction of that 
district is called Pergamean. To it belong the 
inhabitants of Thyatira, and other less hon- 
ored states.” 4 Adv. Gnost. scorp., 12. 

δ᾽ H. #., iv. 15. 

6 Ver. 18. Cf. Alcas., C. a Lap. 

ΚΣ 16 

8 Thus with regard to κατοικεῖς. 

9 Cf. the ποῦ κατοικεῖς and ὅπου ὁ σαταν. 
κατοικεῖ. 


10 Primas, Zeger. 

11 The opinion of P. Zornius (in Wolf) is a 
curiosity; viz., that John had in view the Per- 
gamean museum, and the empty speeches of 
the sophists. 

12 Grot., Wetst., M. Rossal and Ph. Hasiius 
in the Bibl. Brem., iii. pp. 94, 104. Cf. also 
Eichh., Heinr. 

13 xii. 3, 9. 

14 Aret., Pric., Beng., etc. 

15 C. a Lap., Calov. 

16 Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 


᾿ 


142 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
been able to proceed so far as to shed the blood of martyrs. Whether this 
was caused by the adherence of the heathen with special fanaticism to their 
Aesculapius;! or the fact that Perg., as the seat of supreme jurisdiction,? 
most readily offered a theatre for persecutions; ὃ or, finally, that only particu- 
larly hostile individuals# to be sought among the heathen, because not 
further designated,® were present in Perg.,—it is not possible to decide. — xa? 
κρατεῖς, «7.2. The holding fast® of Christ’s name, which continues still to 
the present (κρατεῖς, pres.), has already approved itself on some special op- 
portunity (καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσω, aor.). As the κρατεῖς corresponds to the contrasted 
᾿ ἠρνῆσω, SO τὸ ὄνομα μου is parallel with τὴν πίστιν μου. The former is the ob- 
jective, and the latter the subjective nature. Christ’s ὄνομα which is held 
fast by believers is not “the profession of doctrine delivered by Christ”? 
or the confession of his name,’ but the name of Christ appears as some- 
thing in itself objective, so that one may have, hold, and lose, confess and 
deny it, yea, even, it may work,® as the name of Christ comprises the true 
objective person of Christ together with his riches and glory. The κρατεῖν τὸ 
ὄνομα occurs in the sense of this passage, of course, only by faithful, frank 
confession, but not simply ‘‘ in life and faith.” 1° The corresponding inner 
item (Rom. x. 10) is faith in the Lord: τ. zior. μου, objective genitive.11— 
καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ᾿Αντίπας, κι. The correct text, with which the Vulg. in the 
critical recension agrees,}? i.e., in which before ’Avrimac neither aic nor ἐν αἷς 
nor ἐμαῖς is to be read, but on the contrary before ἀπεκτ. there is a ὃς,}8 is not 
explicable by the conjecture that the gen. ’Avtima may have stood originally 
in the text,!4 nor by the idea that ’Avrizac is used as indeclinable, and the 
form here is intended as genitive ; 15 for both conjectures, in themselves hay- 
ing little probability, are made doubly difficult by the nominative appos. 
ὁ μαρτ. ὁ πιστ., Since here it is hard to accept the explanation which is in 
place in i. 5, where what is said, is of Christ himself. Grotius assumes an 
ellipsis and a transposition by thus analyzing the sentence: ἐν τ. ju. ᾿Αντίπα, 
ὃς ᾿Αντίπας --- ἀπεκτάνθη. Ebrard, who, however, reads αἷς before ’Avr., explains 
the anacoluthon in the sentence by the supposition that the originally in- 
tended construction αἷς ’Avtimac — ἀπεκτάνθη Was abandoned, because the chief 
verb ἀπεκτ. is added as an explanation of the words ὁ yapr. μ. ὁ mor., and 
thus a relative sentence originated which contains the verb properly belong- 
ing to ’Avrizac. But even the latter explanation does not naturally appear 


in the simple members of which the entire sentence consists. Primas, 
1 In connection with which, we must re- 6 Cf. ver. 1, iii. 11. 
member that the idol, because of its epithet 7 Grot. 
σωτήρ, formed a manifest opposition to the 8 De Wette. 
Saviour; we may also think of miraculous 9. Of. Acts ii. 21, iii. 16, ix. 14; Johni. 12. 
cures in the temple of Aesc., and the interests 10 N. de Lyra. 
connected therewith. Cf. Acts xix. 24 sqq., 11 xiv. 12; Rom. iii. 22; Eph. iii.12. Winer, 
Xvi. 19 sqq. Ρ. 175. 
2 Kliefoth. 12 «¢ Kt in diebus Antipas, testis meus fidelis, 


3 In connection with which, relations ac- 
knowledged in Plin., Hp. 97, and the apologists, 
and even indicated in Acts, may be recalled. 

4 Hengstenb. 

5 Ewald. 


qui occisus est,’ etc. Lach., Tisch. 
13 See Critical Remarks. 
14 Ewald. 
15 Bleek. 


CHAP. 11. 14, 15. 148 
N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., and other catholic expositors,! have correctly hit the 
sense by following the explanatory reading of the Vulg. “in diebus illis,” 
for if also the mere article cannot have directly the force of a demonstrative, 
yet it marks the precise days in which the church did not deny the faith: 
“and in the day Antipas” (namely: was) “my faithful witness who,” etc. It 
is designedly that the commendation of the church is still further enhanced 
by the circumstance especially added (xai), that one witness, in the days 
when the whole church faithfully gave its testimony, was faithful even unto 
death. The reference to the οὐκ ἠρνήσω τ. πίστιν μου is indicated also by the 
expression ὁ μαρτ. μου ὁ πίστος,2 as then also the zap’ ὑμῖν and the repeated 
ὅπου ὁ oar. κατοικεῖ in this connection are significant. — Of the martyr Antipas, 
nothing historical is known. Whether his martyrdom, noticed by Andreas, 
were related already perhaps from the account, contained in the later martyr- 
ologies and menologies, viz., that Antipas as bishop of Pergamos under 
Domitian was put to death in a glowing brazen ox, we do not know. The 
interpretations of the name as ’Avti-mdc, i.e., “ Against all,” therefore, child 
of God, and hence enemy of the whole world,’ or Anti-papa,* are wrecked by 
grammar, which teaches that ᾿Αντίπας is similar to ᾿Αντίπατρος. ὃ Coccejus, for 
this reason, wants to find in Antipas the confessor of Athanasianism, since 
᾿Αντίπατρος resembles ἰσόπατρος, and this again ὁμοούσιος. Vitringa adds, yet, 
that the mystical Pergamos where this mystical Antipas was slain, viz., 
again mystically, by banishment, or, in general, by hinderance of confession, 
is Alexandria, the residence of Athanasius. 

Vv. 14, 15. The reproof contrasted with the commendation ® refers to a 
few things: ὀλίγαι Hence the plural occurs not because the tolerance of the 
false teachers is conceived ‘as more than one want,”? but, without noting 
the idea of plurality as such, designates in a certain abstract way only the 
general conception “a few.”& What follows shows that actually only one 
particular thing is meant® The subject of the reproof, moreover, is desig- 
nated as small, not by litotes,!° also not with respect to atonement,!! but be- 
cause the church itself was not so much involved in the false doctrines, as, 
on the contrary, only certain adherents of the same are enumerated among its 
members.!2_ The ἔχεις ---- not precisely equivalent to ἀνέχεις, “thou bearest ” 18 
— contains, in accordance with the connection, the additional idea, that the 
unaffected part, properly the heart of the church,!* may have been slothful in 
efforts to reclaim the erring; at all events, the church as such 1615 regarded 
as a whole, and hence is made responsible for containing within it the Nico- 
laitan false teachers, for this may always be referred to a defect of its 


1 Cf. also Treg. 

2 Beng. 

3 Aretius, Hengstenb., who understand 
thereby Timothy. ; 

4 Ed. Schmidt. 


10 Heinr.: “1 complain grievously of thee.” 
Ebrard. 

11 Aret.: ‘*Christ readily extenuates their 
sins, because, at the same time, he makes 
expiation for them;”’ but, in fact, the ὀλίγα 


5 Winer, p. 97. 

6 Cf. ver. 4. 

7 Bengel, who therefore fixes a certain dis- 
tinction between Balaamites and Nicolaitans. 

8 Not ‘“‘a little.”’ Luther, Hengstenb. 

9 Cf. Winer, p. 166. 


are atrocious. 
12 Cf. De Wette. 
13 Heinr. 
14 De Wette. 
15 Cf. Calov., Vitr., Beng., Hengstenb. 
16 The angel of the church. Cf. i. 20. 


144 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


nature with respect to the critical life of faith. Hence the call to repentance 
is made to the church as a whole, even though the conflict with the Lord 
coming to judgment pertains only to the false teachers (ver. 16). The ἐκεῖ 
stands in inner relation with ver. 13, as also the designation of the false 
teachers (κρατοῦντας τ. did. βαλ., ver. 14, and κρατοῦντας τ. 6:0. Nex., ver. 15) forms 
an antithesis to the commendation of the church, κρατεῖς τ. dv μου, ver. 18. 
Even in a place where a church has held fast to the name of the Lord even 
unto death, is there to be room at least for such godess doctrines. — τῷ Bada. 
Luther incorrectly according to the Var., ἐν τῷ B., “through Balak.” Nor is 
the dative to be regarded a dat. comm., “to please B.,” “in the interest of 
B.,” so that it could result only from the connection that “the people of 
Balak ” were strictly the women of Moab! whom especially Balaam had 
taught to lead astray the Israelites.2 Here no appeal dare be made to the 
fact that in ver. 20 the acc. is construed regularly with διδάσκειν, for there 
the use of the acc. is conditioned also by the πλανᾷ. The dat. with διδάσκειν is 
Hebraizing.? The entire construction is like that of, e.g., ver. 7, where first 
the dat. and then the inf. follows the δώσω. On the other hand, a dat. comm. 
in the above sense seems too refined for the writer of the Apoc. Besides, it 
can in no way be inferred from the construction in Num. xxxi. 16, that 
Balaam immediately perverted the Moabite women: he may have given the 
advice referred to for leading the children of Israel astray, by means of 
Balak, whom he immediately taught. —rjv διδαχὴν Bad. The expression 
διδαχὴ is not to be explained simply from the counterpart, the διδαχὴ Nux., since 
with the Nicolaitans an actual doctrine was the fundamental principle, 
which with Balaam was only an advice,‘ but has its justification in the suc- 
ceeding ὃς ἐδίδασκεν. The doctrine communicated to Balak is first condemned 
according to its ungodly and corrupt nature: βαλεῖν σκάνδαλον ἐνώπιον τ. ὑ. 
Ἰσρ., then is stated according to its contents, so far as it refers to the pres- 
ent Nicolaitans : gay. εἰδωλ. x. πορν. The instruction of Balaam contained a 
σκάνδαλον because the Israelites were thereby led to a sin against their 
God,® viz., to participation in the idol-worship of Baal Peor and to fornica- 
tion. In Num. xxv. 1 sqq., mention is made not only of the eating of the 
sacrifices made to idols, but also of the making of sacrifices. But here 
Christ regarded it sufficient to state what the Israelites had in common with 
the Nicolaitans.? οὕτως ἔχεις καὶ ob, «7.2. ‘Just as Balak held the pestif- 
erous doctrine of Balaam, so among you there are some holding the erroneous 
doctrine of Nicolaus.” Thus N. de Lyra with substantial correctness ex- 
plains the οὔτ. καὶ σύ, while he errs only by 8 combining the ὁμοίως at the close 
of ver. 15, referring back to what precedes, with μετανόησον, ver. 16, as if the 
church at Perg. were called to repentance like the church at Ephesus (ver. 5). 
But this reference is almost still more unnatural than that proposed by De 


1 Num. xxxi. 16. in a trap, Wp. Cf. Jer. vi.21; Ezek. xiv. 3; 


+ Hengstenb., following Beng. Rom. xiv. 13. See my Commentary on 1 John 


3 Cf. 5 30, Job xxi. 22. Ew., De Wette, «10. 
πρᾶος emia Sy, Num. xxxi. 16. 
4 De Wette. 7 Grot. 
5 i.e., properly σκανδάληθρον, i.e., the trendle 8 Cf. C. a Lap., Beng., Tirin., etc. 


CHAP. II. 16. 145 


Wette,! according to which the καὶ σύ is used by way of comparison with 
Ephesus, ver. 6, and thereby a clear distinction is to be indicated between 
Balaamites and Nicolaitans, both of whom are considered as being in Perg. 
But by ὄντως --- ὁμοίως is the Nicolaitan misconduct, consisting in φαγεῖν eidwA, 
and πορνεῦσαι,2 compared with the type of Balaamite sins, while the καὶ σύ in 
this line of thought either points back to Balak,’ or, as is more probable, 
refers for its meaning to the ancient church of the children of Israel. As 
then there were in Israel many who sinned after the doctrine of Balaam, so 
thou hast likewise Nicolaitan offenders. But it in no way follows, that, 
because the name Nicolaitan recalls symbolically the meaning of Balaam’s 
name,‘ therefore also the day. εἰδωλ. and πορν. are to be understood, in some 
way figuratively and improperly,® of gluttons and voluptuaries whose belly 
is their god,® or of the visions and false teachers in general;7 but rather as 
in the times of Balaam, participation in idol-worship and fornication actually 
occurred, so with respect to the so-called Nicolaitans the eating of sacrifices 
to idols, and fornication, are seriously meant; and the very circumstance that 
_ both things also named elsewhere in apostolic times 8 are here reproved with 
a passing-by of the proper idol-worship mentioned in Num. xxv. 1 sqq., 
indicates that these were actually the wicked works of the Nicolaitans® 
with respect to which they might have pleaded their Christian freedom.!° 
[See Note XXXII., p. 156.] 

Ver. 16. The summons to repentance, and the threat in case this is neg- 
lected, is added to the reproof, vv. 14, 15, as in ver. 5. As to the épyouai σοι; 
see on the former passage, and with respect to the ταχύ, cf. 1.1. The church 
as a whole, to whose members the Nicolaitans belong, having shared in the 
reproof, so also share in the admonition to repentance and the threat; for 
the conflict of the coming Lord, which is of course immediately directed only 
against the Nicolaitans (πολ. μετ’ αὑτῶν), must cause suffering to the entire 
body of the church (épy. σοι). It will nevertheless be a judging and visible 
coming to the entire church, if it continue to neglect the deliverance of its 
still curable members, and to cut off those actually dead already. It is 
against the idea of the coming of the Lord in general, and against the sig- 
nificance of the image of the sword in the mouth of the Lord in particular," 
if the πολεμῆσω, x.7.A., be explained: “I will raise up prophets in the church to 
do what the bishop neglects, and to courageously oppose themselves to the 
Nicolaitans,” 12 or be supplemented “by another bishop;”}* so too Grot., 
Wetst., Vitr., Bengel, Herd., Stern, Rinck, Hengstenb., etc., offend against 
the latter idea, in maintaining a remembrance of the sword of the angel 
against Balaam,}4 or the sword whereby the misled Israelites were swept 
away,/> or both.16 Already the statement expressly added after ver. 16, 
fou. Tod στόματός μου, renders this impossible. 


1 Cf. also Heinr. 2 Cf. ver. 20. 10 Heinr., Ewald, De Wette, Hengstenb., 
3 N. de Lyra. Ebrard, ete. 

4 Cf. on ver. 6. 11 Cf. i. 16. 12 Grot. 

5 Herder. 13 Calov. 14 Num. xxii. 11. 

6 C.aLap. Cf. Areth., Vitr., etc. 15 Num. xxxi. 8. 

7 Eichh., Herd., Ziill., etc. 16 Cf., on the other hand, Eichh., Heinr., 


8 Acts xy. 9 Ver. 6. Ewald, De Wette. 


146 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Ver. 17. δώσω αὐτῷ τοῦ μάννα The partitive gen.! has its correct meaning 
no less than the immediately succeeding accus.2— The general sense of the 
promise is not to fail because of the parallel ideas at the close of all seven 
epistles. The expressions are, at all events, as Areth. remarks on ψηφ. Aevr., 
a παροιμία ἐπὶ τῶν εὐδαιμόνως ---- ζώντων (a maxim concerning those living happily), 
a description of future eternal blessedness and glory. This is misapplied 
by those who understand the manna as directly referring to the Lord’s Sup- 
per,‘ or to the spiritual quickening and consolation imparted to believers 
even during their conflict in and with the world,’ or as the figure of divine 
grace in general which becomes manifest in justification (ψηφ. Aeve.) and 
the offering of sonship (ὄν. xa). In the latter explanation, apart from the 
misunderstanding of the idea ὁ νικῶν, the groundless assertion is made, that 
ἐπί is equivalent to σύν. The more specific explanation of details has occa- 
sioned much difficulty. Utterly inapplicable to the hidden manna is the 
allusion 8 to the Jewish opinion, that, before the destruction of the temple by 
Nebuchadnezzar, the prophet Jeremiah or the king Josiah had rescued and 
concealed the ark of the covenant, together with the holy relics contained 
therein, and that the Messiah at his appearance will again bring them to 
light.® Incorrect, too, is the view that Christ himself is the hidden manna.!° 
Christ gives it. Incorrect is the view of Grot.: “τ. κεκρυμμ. is equivalent to 
τοῦ νοητοῦ (the intellectual), and designates the more exact knowledge not 
only of God’s commands, but also of his dispensations.” But rather, as the 
victor has approved himself especially in resisting the temptation to eat of 
what is sacrificed to idols, so he receives a corresponding reward when the 
Lord offers him heavenly, divine food, viz., manna, the bread of heaven,}* — 
such fruit as, like the fruit of the tree of life, ver. 7, will nourish the 
heavenly, blessed life. This manna is hidden, because it will be manifest 
only in future glory when it will be enjoyed; as, in a similar way, is said im- 
mediately afterwards of the new name.!8 — ψῆφον λευκὴν, «.7.A. Without any 
foundation is the explanation of N. de Lyra,!* according to which the white 
stone signifies the body decorated with the endowment of brilliancy, and the 
new name written thereon; “then every one manifestly and bodily blessed 
with the endowments of a glorious body, will be enrolled in the city of the 
celestials.” In connection with the mention of the manna, the explanation 
of the white stone has been sought in the Jewish fable, that, besides the 
manna, precious stones and pearls were found in the wilderness; 15. or the 
decoration of the high priest at the time of the giving of the manna has 
been recalled, as he bore upon twelve precious stones (which, however, were 


1 Cf. Acts xxvii. 30. a future time, when our Messiah comes, will 
2 Cf. Winer, pp. 186, 539. be manifested.” 
3 Cf. especially ver. 7. 10 John vi.; Primas, N. de Lyra, Vitr. See 
4 Tichon., Beda. 5 C.a Lap., Boss. on ver. 7. 
6 Wolf, after J. H. Majus. 11 Cf. Bengel, De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 
7 Wolf. Cf. also Luther: *“‘ A good testi- 12 Pg. Ixxviii. 49, cv. 40. 

mony, and with the testimony.” 13 Cf. also 1 Cor. ii. 7 sqq. 
8 Wetst., Heinr., Ew. 14 Cf. already Beda. 
9 Cf. 2 Mace. ii. 1 sq. Abarbanel on 1 Sam. 15 Joma viii.: ‘‘ Precious stones and pearls 


iv.4: ** This is the ark which Josiah hid before fell together with the manna upon the Israel- 
the devastation of our temple; and this ark, at ites.” In Wetst. 


CHAP. II. 17. 147 


not called ψῆφος) 1 the names of the tribes of Israel, so that here is indicated 
the priestly dignity of the complete victors.2_ Others, likewise, in a certain 
connection with the mention of heavenly food, have combined the heathen 
custom, according to which the conquerors in the games were led to festive 
banquets, and otherwise rewarded with gifts of many kinds. Thus Vitruv.® 
reports: “To the noble athletes who conquered in the Olympian, Pythian, 
Nemean, and Isthmian games, the ancestors of the Greeks appointed honors 
so great that not only standing in the assembly with palm and garland they 
receive praise, but also when they return to their states in victory, they are 
in triumph drawn within the walls in a four-yoked chariot, and enjoy for 
their whole life, from the republic, a fixed income.” The Roman emperors4 
also established such public games, from which the victors were led (ἐιςήλασαν) 
in triumph to their native city, and then received the deferred rewards. Titus 
was accustomed even to throw into the arena small wooden balls, on which 
were written orders for food, clothing, money, etc.; then the contestants 
received what the order proffered them stated. According to this, the white 
stone is explained as the order for the heavenly reward,® as the “ ticket ” to the 
heavenly banquet.? Others, leaving out of consideration any connection be- 
tween the manna and the white stone, recall the use of the lot among the Jews,® 
as well as among the Greeks and Romans, who were accustomed to ballot with 
small white stones or beans, called ψῆφος, upon which names were written ; 9 
still others compare it with the classical usage of rendering a favorable judg- 
ment in trials by means of white stones, and thus find in this passage a rep- 
resentation of Christ’s judgment preserving from condemnation, and intro- 
ducing to blessedness by the sentence of justification.!° Many expositors, 
again, have combined several of these references, viz., that of election (ἐκλογῇ) 
and justification.4 But against all such definite antiquarian references is the 
decisive circumstance that the presentation of our passage truly agrees with 
not one of them. Hengstenb. is correct in saying,}? “that the point coming 
here into consideration is only the fact that in antiquity many things were 
written on a small stone.” Besides, the white color of the stone given the 
victor, which in itself represents the glory of the victory,!* and the purity of 
the blessed in heaven," retains its full significance. But what properly gives 
the white stone its worth is the inscription which it bears: Christ gives the 


1 Exod. xxviii. 17, xxxix. 10. 8 Schottgen: “1 believe that allusion is made 


2 Cf. Ew., Ziill., Ebrard, Klief. 

SV 1K.9 LTO) « 

4 Cf., e.g.,in reference to Trajan, Plin., Z., x. 
Ep. 119, 120. 

5 Xiphilin, Zpit. Dion., p. 228: σφαιρία yap 
ξύλινα μικρὰ ἄνωθεν εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἐῤῥίπτει, 
σύμβολον ἔχοντα, τὸ μὲν ἐδωδίμουν τινὸς, κ.τ.λ. 
— a ἁρπασαντάς τινας ἔδει πρὸς τοὺς δωτῆρας 
αὐτῶν ἀπενεγκεῖν καὶ λαβεῖν τὸ ἐπιγεγραμμένον. 
Cf., in general, K. F. Hermann, d. Gottes- 
dienstl. Alterth. d. Griechen, § 50; Not. 30 
866. p. 254 sqq. 

6 Areth., Grot., Hammond, Eichh. 

7 Heinr., Ew. ii.: Tessera hospitalitatis 
(token of hospitality). 


to the lot which was to be cast by the priests 
who wished to offer sacrifice. According to 
Tamid., fol. xvi. 1: ‘* The prefect of the temple 
came at the hour of cock-crowing, and the 
priests open. Then he says to them: ‘ Let him 
who has been washed come and draw lots; he 
whom the lot touches is worthy of sacrifi- 
cing.’ ”’ 

9 Elsner. 

10 Victorin., Erasmus, Zeger, C.a Lap., Are- 
tius, Calov., Vitr., Wolf, etc. 

11 De Wette, Stern. Cf. also Beng. 

12 Cf. already Beng. 

18. υἹἱ, 2. 

ae ΤΟΣ, 


148 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


victor a new name, written upon the stone,—a name which no one knows 
except he who receives it. That the new name written upon the stone can in 
no way be the name of God,} is proved partly from the type of the ancient 
prophetic promise of a new name,’ partly by the analogy of xix. 12, where what 
is said is concerning the proper name of Christ, and partly also from the rule 
given in the limitation ὃ οὔδεὶς, «.7.4, The idea in iil. 12, xiv. 1, is of an entirely 
different nature. The opinion of Eichhorn also is to be rejected; viz., that 
the stone bore the inscription ὁ ἅγιος τῷ θεῷ καὶ τῷ αρνιῷ, Which is called new in 
opposition to the ancient Jewish faith in God without the Lamb. But to 
the norms given above, corresponds the view advanced by most expositors, 
according to which the declaration refers to the proper name of the victor.® 
The name is new, because it designates the new glory of believers, i.e., that 
which is manifested only in the future life;* and only he having received 
the same knows it, because, as is the case likewise already in this life, the 
knowledge of the blessedness of eternal life is disclosed only in personal 
experience. But how that new name will sound, cannot be in any way 
answered according to this text. The answer given by most, that it is ‘‘son 
of God,” or “elect,”’ is applicable only as therein the general contents of the 
Christian hope are expressed.5 [See Note XXXIIL, p. 156.] 

Vv. 18-29. The epistle to the church at Thyatira. — Thyatira, about 
nineteen hours from Pergadmos, on the road thence to Sardis, not far from 
the river Lycus in Lydia, —now Akhissar,— was an inconsiderable city, 
belonging to the civil jurisdiction of Perg.6 A dealer in purple, Lydia of 
Thyatira, is mentioned in Acts xvi. 14; but that she founded the Christian 
church there, —a presumption according to which Hengstenb. immediately 
connects “works of love” with the “female origin of the church,” —is just 
as little to be asserted as there is foundation for the unfavorable supposition 
that Lydia may have been meant by Jezebel, ver. 20.7. The church at Thyatira 
was, like the others in Asia, not purely Jewish-Christian, as Grot. thinks, in 
order to weaken an uncritical objection of the Alogi against the worth of the 
Apoc. But ver. 20 rather refers explicitly to heathen Christian elements. — 
That Irenaeus could not have been the bishop 9 to whom John writes, is men- 
tioned already by N. de Lyra. C.a Lap. and others name Carpus as bishop.” 

Ver. 18. ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. The Lord, who in i. 13 appears like a son of 
man, is, as the entire description (i. 13 sqq.) shows, the Son of God, although 
he does not there receive that precise name. But in the present epistle he 
- expressly designates himself as such, because, especially in ver. 27, this glory 
of his is asserted in accordance with Ps. ii. The two other designations, 
derived from i. 14, 15, have their significance in the fact that the Lord with 
his eyes of flame penetrates! all, and with his feet like brass treads down 
every thing impure and malevolent.!” 


1 Ewald. 6 See on ver. 12 sqq. 

2 Isa. lxii. 2, Ixv. 15. 7 Cf. Heinr. 

8 Beda, Ribera, C. a Lap., L. Cappellus, 8 «¢ What had the Jews at that time to do 
Grot., Coccej., Vitr., Wolf, Bengel, De Wette, with sacrifices to idols? ἢ 
Hengstenb., Ebrard, ete. 9 Angel. Cf. i. 20. 

4 1 John iii. 2; 1 Cor. xiii. 9 sqq. 10 Cf. on ver. 12 sqq. 


5 Rom. viii. 17; 1 John iii. 2. 11 Cf. ver. 23. 12 Cf. ver. 27. 


CHAP. II, 19, 20. 149 


Ver. 19. The works of the church (οἱδά σου τὰ ἔργα), as the Lord knows 
them, are first introduced by name,—the subordination of the four items 
τ. ἀγάπην, τ. πίστιν, τ. διακονίαν, and τ. trouovqv, is noted by the attaching of the 
σοῦ only to the last,;—and then (x. τὰ ἔργα σου, x.7.A.) are commended as a 
whole, because a progress therein is shown. Two pairs are mentioned, and 
that, too, in such order that their individual members correspond to one 
another. The ἀγάπη, which already, because it precedes, is intended to refer 
in an altogether general way to love to God and the brethren, and not only 
to love to the poor,? proves itself in the διακονία, i.e., in kindness towards all 
needing help, especially the poor; and the πίστις, i.e., faith, — not fidelity,* 
— proves itself in the ὑπομονῆ, ie., faithful and patient perseverance founded 
upon the hope of faith, in the midst of attacks from the hostile world.6— 
πλείονα τῶν πρώτων. Cf. Matt. xii. 45; 2 Pet. ii. 20. The church at Ephesus 
(ver. 5), on the contrary, but in a similar way, had been reproved for a 
relapse. 

Ver. 20. ἀλλ᾽ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι ἀφεῖς, κιτιΔ. Cf. ver.4. Grot. incorrectly par- 
aphrases: ‘‘I wish you to dismiss that wife.” The sense of the ἀφεῖς 5 is 
correctly given by the var. édc,’ “that thou let alone.” Connected with τὴν 
γυναῖκα ᾿Ιεσαβήλ, but in an interrupted construction, is the appositive 8 7 Acy., 
κιτιλ. The juncture proposed by Winer, p. 498, ἣ λέγουσα --- καὶ διδάσκει καὶ πλανᾷ, 
“15 too refined, while the very harshness of the former inartificial construction 
corresponds with John’s mode. The words καὶ διδάσκει καὶ πλανᾷ are to be 
regarded neither as a so-called hysteron proteron,® nor to be combined in 
ἡ διδάσκουσα πλανᾷ, but the accus. τ. ἐμ. δούλους depends upon both verbs, while 
the infinitives πορνεῦσαι καὶ φαγεῖν eid., which are used with a certain looseness 
of construction, are nevertheless again connected with sufficient firmness by 
the prevailing meaning of the διδάσκει, which in its combination with πλανᾷ 
appears to refer to a false doctrine. — The explanation of the expression 
τ. γυναῖκα ᾿Ιεσαβήλ 11 is a matter of controversy, which essentially depends upon 
the fact, that, as in ver. 14, neither the πορνεῦσαι nor even the ¢ayeiv εἰδωλ. is 
to be understood figuratively or even only in a double sense.!2_ The prece- 
dency of the πορνεῦσαι does not show that at Thyatira fornication prepared 
the way for eating sacrifices to idols,}3 which in itself, and in view of ver. 14, 
is improbable, as, on the contrary, the eating of sacrifices to idols gave occa- 
sion for unchastity; neither is it to be mentioned, that “in reference to 
ancient Jezebel, the history expressly intends only fornication, while in refer- 
ence to Balaam the temptation to eat sacrifices offered to idols is also men- 
tioned,” 15 for according to 1 Kings xviii. 19, xxi. 25 sqq., this is not entirely 
correct with respect to either Jezebel or Balaam.!® Fornication precedes for 


1 Ebrard. Cf. ver. 2. 7 John xi. 44, 48, xii. 7. 
2 Ew. Cf. ver. 4. 8 Offi ic 5, iii. 12; xiv. 12, 
5. Acts xi. 29; 1 Cor. xvi. 15; 2 Cor. ix. 12 9 κι πλανᾷ Κ. 615. Pric. 
sqq. Aretius, Grot., Beng., Heinr., Ew., De 10 Grot. 
Wette, Ebrard. Calov., incorrectly: ‘ διακ.» 11 Cf, Critical Remarks. 
the performance of the duties of the holy 12 Of proper and improper fornication. 
ministry.” Hengstenb. 
4 Beng., Ew. ii. 5 Cf. i. 9. 13 Bengel. 14 Hengstenb. 


6 On this form, Winer, p. 77. 15 See on ver. 14. 


150 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

the reasons for which (ver. 21)! it is alone named; viz., because it was the 
chief thing among the Nicolaitans in Thyatira. “The woman Jezebel” is 
manifestly represented as a teacher of a Balaamite or Nicolaitan character. 
If now “the woman Jez.” collectively is to designate a party and “ personi- 
fied heresy,” 2 the body of Jews, the synagogue,’ cannot be meant, — an ex- 
planation which only by the most unnatural artificialness is united with the 
declaration that the false doctrine of Jezebel alludes to πορνεῦσαι and gay. 
eidwA., — but the Nicolaitan false teachers must be represented under the 
figure of Jezebel.* But partly the designation τὴν γυναῖκα, which is attached 
to a name sufficient for that sense, partly the further limitation ἡ λέγουσα éavr., 
k.t.4., Which has in itself something that is individual, decides the view that 
a particular woman is meant; not the wife of a bishop,’ nor a woman who is 
actually called Jezebel,® but some woman who under the pretence of being a 
prophetess had approved the doctrines of the Nicolaitans, and for that 
reason was designated a new Jezebel, as Ahab’s wife formerly in the O. T. 
church, by the introduction of the worship of Baal, and fornication,’ which 
was combined with the worship of Baal and Ashtaroth, gave the greatest 
offence. That the woman in Thyatira did not actually have the name Jeze- 
bel, but rather that this name was understood symbolically, does not follow 
from the fact that in the Apoc. all names except that of the composer are of 
a symbolical character,® for that is not the case ; 19 but from the fact that it is 
applied to the false doctrines and godlessness, which have been designated 
already by the name of Balaam, of entirely similar notoriety with that of the 
wife of Ahab. 

Ver. 21. This misleader’s worthiness of punishment? is increased by the 
fact that she had time for repentance, and yet will not repent. Thus by 
the «ai this point is added to the guilt mentioned in ver. 20. — ἔδωκα, «.7.2., 
designates not the unsearchable decree of God in relation to ‘the speedy 
coming ” of the Lord, that a time for repentance should still be open, but in 
connection with which it is predicted that the same will not be utilized ; 12 
but a time of repentance is designated, the discerning of which, indeed, lies 
in an act of the Lord’s grace that is now past (ἔδωκα),18 but which, as the 
pres. ὑ θέλει μεταν. shows, is to be regarded as continuing still to the present, 
and that, too, fruitlessly. Thus there is no ground for the opinion 13 that, 
John had already before published a written rebuke. But it is correctly 
inferred that the woman Jezebel had for a long time already exercised her 
corrupt activity. Even the fact that she had been let go 16 appears from the 
standpoint of Divine Providence to afford an opportunity for a time of re- 


1 Cf, also ver. 22. 

2 Hengstenb. 

3 Alcas., Ziill. 

4 Andr., Areth., Vitr., Eichh., Hengstenb., 
Ebrard. 

5 Grot., Klief., who regards the σου after 
γυν. as indisputable. 

6 Wolf, Beng. 

72 Kings ix. 22; 1 Kings xxi. 23 sqq.; 2 
Kings iii. 2, ix. 80 sqq. 


8 C.a Lap., Calov., Heinr., Herd., Ew., De 
Wette, Stern, etc. 
9 Hengstenb. 

10 Of. ver. 18. 

12 Ebrard. 

13 Cf, Winer, p. 80. Ebrard inaccurately 
paraphrases the aor. after the manner of the 
present. 

14 Ew. ii. 

16 Cf. ver. 20. 


11 Cf, ver. 22. 


15 Ew., De Wette. 


Ἢ CHAP. II. 22, 23. 151 


pentance, although the church must on this account be censured. — The ἐκ 
after μεταν.1 naturally stands as a designation of the movement out of sins. 
— The ropveia — not “inaccurately stated for immodest pursuits leading to 
inchastity ” ?— is meant precisely as in ver. 20 (ver. 14). Fornication in its 
various forms was properly the heart of the error. 

Vv. 22, 23. The ἰδού so strongly emphasizes the succeeding threat, and 
makes us so to expect something new in comparison with ver. 21, that the 
discredited ἐγώ appears in an exegetical respect entirely superfluous. — Al- 
ready the βάλλω ait. shows that the κλίνη is a bed which the woman takes 
only when so compelled. Yet the κλίνη does not designate the punishments 
in hell,? but the sick-bed,* in opposition to the bed of sensuality. But by 
this description of such judgment, the reference to Jezebel and her entirely 
different® punishment is abandoned,® so that even in ver. 29, in the words 
κ. τ. τέκνα αὐτ., an allusion to the destruction of the sons of Ahab? dare not 
be sought. The punishment of the woman and her companions, without 
regard to the significant designation existing in the name Jezebel, is deter- 
mined in accordance with the manner of their sins. It is to be observed, 
however, that the expression now chosen, μοιχεύειν --- τ. μοιχ. per’ αὐτῆς, i.e., 
those who shared in her deeds,’ designates the entire conduct of the woman 
and her party in a double sense, embracing the πορνεία and the gay. eidwi., 
since the ethnicizing disorder must be punished more than adultery in a 
theocratical-symbolical sense, as in fact actual fornication was what was 
chiefly designed. Thus the μοϊχεύοντες μετ᾽ ἀυτῆς are those who perform τὰ ἔργα 
αὐτῆς, i.e., the works taught and practised by the woman; or as in ver. 23 it 
is again said, according to another application of the symbolical] idea,® ra τέκνα 
αὐτῆς,19 and therefore not actually bastards.1! Incorrectly, N. de Lyra: gehenna. 
It is possible to think of a pest,}? because the LX X. have rendered the Heb. 
21, Ezek. xxxiii. 27, by θάνατος. Meanwhile it is sufficient to leave the 
matter in its universality; the entire formula ἀποκτ. ἐν θανάτῳ then in its ful- 
ness corresponds in some measure to the Hebrew mode of combining an 
infin. with the finite tense of its root, as, e.g., Lev. xx. 10, where the punish- 
ment of adultery is stated ΓΙ)" ΠῚ (LXX., θανάτῷ θανατούς θωσαν). But any 
allusion to this precise passage is, to say the least, doubtful. The indepen- 
dence of the Johannean formula, notwithstanding its adoption of Hebraic 
modes of statement, lies partly in the distinction between the words ἀποκτενῶ 
and θανάτῳ, and partly in the fact that by the addition of the preposition ἐν 
the precise idea of the means 13 is marked. — καὶ γνώσονται, «.7.A. Every judg- 
ment of the Lord upon the world is a revelation of his glory, and has the 
intentional result to advance and strengthen believers more and more in 
their knowledge. Thus the idea of the γνωσ. is entirely too general 14 to 


1 Ver. 22. Cf. Acts viii. 22: ἀπό. 9 Cf. Isa. lvii. 3. 

2 De Wette. 10 Areth., N. de Lyra, Calov., Vitr., Eichh., 

8 Beda, N. de Lyra. Cf. also C. a Lap., De Wette, Stern, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Ew. ii. 
Tirin. 11 Aretius, Grot., Beng., Ew., Klief. 

4 Ps. xli. 4. 5 2 Kings ix. 31 sqq. 12 Grot., Vitr., Wetst., Bengel, Ewald, etc. 

6 Against Herder, etc. Cf. vi. 8. 

72 Kings x.7. Ziill., Ebrard. 13 Cf. ver. 16. 


8 Areth., Vitr., Ew., De Wette, etc. 14 Cf. Joel iv. 17; Isa. xxxvii. 20. 


152 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
admit of any special opposition to the false gnosis} of the Nicolaitans. It 
is different with ver. 24. — πᾶσαι αἱ éxxa. Not only the Asiatic;? but rather, 
as the judgment upon false teachers in Thyatira is an act which belongs to 
the coming of the Lord, so also this special act shares in the absolutely uni- 
versal significance of Christ’s final appearance. — ὅτε ἐγώ εἰμι, «.7.A. A forcible 
designation of the person of whom so great a thing is said as ὁ εῤεύνων, x.7.A. 
Cf. Ps. vii. 10. The Son of God who executes judgment (καὶ δώσω, «.7.A.) has 
also the divine attribute of searching the deepest recesses of man, and thus 
the condition for just judgment,’ as he has both eyes as a flame of fire, and 
feet like brass. --- νεφροὺς καὶ καρδίας. According to Grot. and Beng., the 
former is intended to designate the desires, and the latter the thoughts. But 
the expression designates rather the entire inner part without any distinc- 
tion of the two points. —iuiv. An animated turn to those guilty.> Cf. ver. 
24.— κατὰ τὰ épya ὑμων. Because the Lord, who recognizes the inner source 
of the works, sees also their worth.® 

Vy. 24, 25. In opposition (δὲ) to the Nicolaitans spoken of at the close of 
ver. 23, the Lord now addresses that part of the church not infected by such 
false doctrines; by the words oitwec, κιτ.}., the rest are then expressly charac- 
terized as such as had not received this doctrine, this not godly, but satanic, 
gnosis. The reference to the so-called gnosis of the Nicolaitans is here 
clearly indicated by the expression τὰ βαθέα, even apart from the controverted 
formula ὡς λέγουσιν ; for to become acquainted with the depths (of divinity) 
was an essential pretence of the Gnostics.’?. But it is a matter of controversy, 
_ whether the expression τ. βαθέα τ. oat. Should be conceived of as a self-chosen 
designation of Gnostic erroneous doctrine concerning the “rest,” § so that οὐκ 
ἔγνωσαν and ὡς λέγουσιν have the same subject, or whether the Nicolaitan 
Gnostics are to be regarded as the subject to ὡς λέγουσιν, so that the expres- 
sion τὰ βαθέα τ. cat. is used either entirely as it sounds in the sense of these 
Gnostics,® or according to the analogy of the designation συναγωγὴ τοῦ σατανᾶ, 
ver. 9, as a sarcastic transformation of the Gnostic expression concerning the 
depths; viz., as they say, of the Deity, but as it is rather in fact meant, of 
Satan.?° But if, in the former sense, the entire formula τὰ βαθέα τοῦ σατανᾶ 
were to be understood as one in itself peculiar to the Gnostics (ὡς Aey.), it 
must also be shown how it was used by them; but this does not occur. 
Hence the view commends itself, that the expression τὰ βαθέα τ. car. is to be 
conceived of from the Christian standpoint. At the same time it appears. 
far more forcible if the Gnostics themselves be regarded as the sub- 
ject to ὡς λέγουσιν with respect to the chief idea τὰ βαθέα, while the further 


1 Hengstenb. 

2 Grot. 

3 Jer. xi. 20, xvii. 10. 

4 Ver. 18. 

5 Grotius, De Wette. 

6 Cf. De Wette. 

7 “Tf, in good faith, you ask them a ques- 
tion, they answer, with stern look and con- 
tracted brow, that ‘itisdeep.’”’ Tertull., Adv. 
Valent.,i.—‘*‘ Who say that they have come to 


the depths of the depth.” Iren., Adv. Haer., 


11. 38, 1. Pref.: βαθέα μυστήρια, ‘deep mys- 
teries.” 

8 Andr., Areth., Heinr., Ziillig, Stern, 
Ebrard. 


9 Neander, Apost. Zeitalt., 3d ed. ii. p. 532. 
Hengstenb., Gebhardt, Klief. 

10 So Vitr.: “The ws λέγουσιν is to be re- 
ferred absolutely to the τὰ βαθέα." The word 
““ οὗ Satan ’’ is added by the Lord himself. 


CHAP. 11. 26-28. 153 


τ determination of τοῦ σατανᾶ is made prominent, in that the question in fact 
is not concerning divine depths,! nor divine mysteries,? but the depths of 
Satan, as if this judgment were put in the mouths of believers at Thyatira 
who remained faithful, and they therefore are regarded as the subject to the 
ὡς λέγουσιν. ---- To the rest at Thyatira the Lord now says, οὐ βώλλω ---ἥἧξω. The 
expression ἄλλο βάρος has been understood in two chief respects, but with very 
different modifications of exposition; viz., either of the burden of suffering 
and punishment, or of the burden of a law. The norm furnished by the 
context, for the explanation of an expression in itself ambiguous, lies in the 
words πλὴν bey.,«.7.4., Which in no way contain the condition of the promise 
οὐ βάλλω ép’ bu. ἄλλο Bap.,2 but a certain limitation (πλῆν) of the preceding 
promise, as the πλῆν is correlate to ἄλλο. If now in the words ver. 25, the 
manifestation of Christian steadfastness in faith is required, and therefore a 
certain incessant legal determination is made or established, the result is 
that every ἄλλο βάρος must likewise be a burden of the law, which, just 
because it reaches farther than the limitation indicated in the closing words 
(ver. 25), should not be laid upon believers. If now it be considered that 
the question at issue was with respect to fornication and the eating of sacri- 
fices made to idols, and that just in respect to this the ancient church at the 
Synod of Jerusalem, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, made a definite 
decision, but declined all going beyond this as an intolerable burden,* we 
could not recognize hence a clear allusion to that decree; and accordingly 
explain the ἄλλο βάρος of any sort of legal limitation of the holy freedom of 
believers, which proceeds beyond the commandment hitherto faithfully pre- 
served by them.§ The ὃ ἔχετε, nevertheless, is not directly the formerly 
recognized and still faithfully observed prohibition to avoid fornication and 
the eating of what is sacrificed to idols; but the expression in its indefinite 
extent includes the idea that because believers have been faithful in oppo-: 
sition to the Nicolaitans, just in their obedience they have also had their 
reward, viz., the blessing of eternal life, and therefore should hold fast to 
this treasure,® while they bear still further the burden of that commandment 
which was hitherto borne. If the ἄλλο βάρος, therefore, be understood of the 
burden of suffering, it can be explained only, with De Wette: “No other 
sorrow than you bear or have borne already.” For we must infer from the 
mention of the ὑπομονή, ver. 19, that suffering was already borne; while, in 
case this reference were to ἄλλο βάρος, a more definite allusion to suffering 
previously endured would be expected. Incorrectly, Heinr.: ‘¢‘ Punishment 
because of another’s fault.” Incorrectly, Grot.: “ They boast of the knowl- 
edge of many things; this I do not exact of you,” as though the gnosis were 
the ἄλλο βάρος. Incorrectly, Beng. (whom Klief. follows): “As they had 
borne the burden of Jezebel and her followers sufficiently.” 

Vv. 26-28. The promise to the victor. — The combination with ver. 25, 
indicated by the καὶ, lies in the fact that the victory is won by the τηρεῖν ἄχρι 


1 Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 10; Rom. xi. 33. 5 Cf. Primas, N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Stern, 
2 Tren., Adv. Haer., i. 1, ii. 39, 48. Hengstenb. Cf. also Ew. ii. 
3 Ebrard. SOL, iii. 


4 Acts xv. 28, 7 Cf. Bengel, De Wette, Hengstenb. 


154 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. ᾿ 


τέλους τὰ ἔργα μου, Which in meaning is nothing else than the κρατεῖν com- 
manded in ver. 25. With respect to the form of the expression, the τηρεῖν — 
corresponds to the xpareiv, the ἄχρι τέλους to the ἄχρι ob ἂν ἥξω. The τὰ ἔργα μου 
find their explanation partly in opposition to the works of Jezebel,! and partly 
in combination with ver. 25; they are such works as the Lord requires by the 
commandment which he imposes. Incorrectly, Grotius: Metonymy, for épya 
are said to be precepts concerning works. — Concerning the broken construc- 
tion of the sentence, ver. 26, as the αὐτῷ refers back to absolute preceding 
nominative ὁ νικῶν, «.7.2., οἵ. Winer, pp. 170, 533. — The substantial sense of 
the promise δώσω ---- πατρός μου is that the victor is to share in the work of es- 
tablishing the βασιλεία 5 at the coming of the Lord. For just as the Son has 
already received (εἰλ.}) from the Father power over the heathen, that he breaks 
them like earthen vessels with a rod of iron,’ so also will they who believe in 
Jesus Christ be raised by him, their Mediator, through whom they have already 
at the present time the kingdom,? to participation in the glory which then 
becomes manifest.5 The coming of the Lord completely and actually effects 
the victory over all that is hostile; and he who remains faithful until that 
coming will then receive as a reward the royal glory in its fuller develop- 
ment, whose possession in faith has already conditioned the victory over all 
temptations or persecutions on the part of the world. Incorrectly Grot., on 
ἐξουσ. ἐπὶ τ. é6v.: “1 will raise him to the grade of presbyter, that he may 
judge concerning those who live not in a Christian but a heathen way ;” and 
ver. 27 of excommunication.* The conversion of the heathen, also, we must 
regard neither alone,’ nor with the addition of the idea of the future royal 
dominion.’ — ποιμανεῖ ὃ according to the LXX., Ps. ii. 9, for DY7A (break), is 
interchanged with Ny) (feed). —In the epistle to the church at Thyatira, 
this promise has its reference to the opposition to the heathen libertinism of 
Jezebel and her party. —x«. δώσω αὐτῷ τὸν dor. τ. mp., ver. 28, cannot be like 
θῆσω αὐτόν, κιτ.λῪλ That the morning star which Christ will give to the victor 
is “the glorious body refulgent with the endowment of brilliancy,” 11 is ‘an 
entirely arbitrary assumption of exegetical helplessness; while still others 
have advanced the idea, with allusion to Isa. xiv. 12, that by the morning 
star the Devil is to be understood,” or the Babylonian, i.e., the most powerful 
king of the world.!? According to xxii. 16, to understand Christ himself 15 is 
impossible because of the δώσω, which makes us expect a gift of the Lord. 
According to the analogy of Dan. xii. 3, Matt. xii. 43, 1 Cor. xv. 40 sqq,., 
the expression in general designates the bright glory,!® the heavenly δόξα," 


1 Ver. 22. Eichh., Heinr., Ewald, ete. 9) CE xis 5, xix. 15. 


ΣΟ πἰχ 9, xi1..5. 10 Eichh. Cf. also Heinr. 

8. Cf. Ps. ii. 8, 9. 11 N. de Lyra. Cf. ver. 17. 

41.6, 9. ‘ 12 Cf. Rom. xvi. 20. Andr., Areth. 

5 iii, 21, xx. 6. 13 Ziill. 

6 ῥαβὲὸ. σιδ. = word of God, a part of which 14 Primas, Beda, Alcas., C. a Lap., Calov., 
is excommunication. Vitr., Wolf, Beng., Stern, Ebrard, Klief. 

7 Cf. Primas, Beda, Alcas., who immedi- 15 Vy. 17, 10. 
ately regard the iron rod as a designation of 16 Aretius. 
the bishop’s crosier. 17 De Wette. Cf. also Hengstenb. 


8 Cf. Ebrard. 


NOTES. 155 


with which the victor is to be endowed, without regarding dorfp itself as 
used! of nothing else than “brilliancy and rays of the star.”? Yet it is 
difficult for the discourse to be in reference to a domination of the star, 
similar to that in what precedes. The bold poetical idea! appears rather to 
be, that the victor beams in the brilliancy of the morning star, because he 
has the morning star in his possession, just as a precious stone adds its efful- 
gence to those who wear it. [See Note XXXIV., p. 157.] 


Notes BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XXVIII. Ver. 2. 


Hengstenberg calls attention to the danger incurred, when any special duty 
is incumbent upon the Church, of so concentrating all energies upon it that 
other spheres are neglected, and to the excuse for this neglect given by conscience 
on the ground of its activity in the one direction. So intent was the church 
of Ephesus in properly withstanding errorists, and in its toilsome labors in this 
cause, that love was vanishing, though the earnestness originally prompted by 
love remains. A superficial legal orthodoxism, and a zeal in good works, are. 
gradually supplanting the life-communion with Christ which is the soul and 
centre of a normal church life. Alford agrees with Diist., that the τὸν κόπον καὶ 
τὴν ὑπομονήν are epexegetical of τὰ ἔργα. Concerning the hardship implied in the 
tov κόπον, cf. Matt. xxvi. 10; Luke xi. 7, xviii. 5; 2 Cor. xi. 27; Gal. vi. 17. It 
and its derivative κοπιάω are especially applied to the service of ministering the 
word, John iv. 38; Rom. xvi. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 10, 58 (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 12); 2 Cor. vi. 
b, x. 15, xi. 23, 27; 1 Cor. xvi. 16; Gal. iv. 11;. Phil. ii. 16; Col. i, 29; 1 Thess. 
11. 9, Hid, iv. 10; 2. Τ Π6 58... 111. 8:1 Tim. iv. 10, v. 17; Heb. vi. 10; and aré 
most suitable to the interpretation of the ἀγγέλος, as the bishop or pastor of the 
church. Hence the practical point of Trench: ‘*‘ How often does labor which 
esteems itself labor for Him stop very short of this! Perhaps, in our day, none 
are more tempted continually to measure out to themselves tasks too light and 
inadequate than those to whom an office and ministry in the church have been 
committed. Others, in almost every other calling, have it measured out to 
them. We give to it exactly the number of hours which we please. We may 
well keep this word κόπος, and all that it signifies, viz., labor unto weariness, in 
mind.’? The note of the same author on οὗ βαστάσαι κακούς is also pertinent: 
“The infirmities, even the sins, of weak brethren, these are burdens which we 
may, nay, which we are commanded to bear (cf. Gal. vi. 2, where the same word 
βαστάζειν is used): it is otherwise with false brethren (Ps. cxix. 115, cix. 21, 22; 
ΠΡΌΣ: v.14)? 


XXIX. Ver. 6. τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν. 


The argument in the long and thorough discussion in Gebhardt (pp. 206-216) 
is to prove the distinction between the Nicolaitans and those errorists men- 
tioned in ver. 2, ‘‘them which say they are apostles,” etc., referring to Judaizing 
teachers, the conflict with whom is now in the background, while, with Diist., 
he regards the Nicolaitans as ethnicizing teachers of an Antinomian type. He 
traces the two classes, as prophesied already by St. Paul in his charge to the 

1 Ew. ii. wishes to insert the entire prom- 2 xii. 1. Heinr., Ewald. 
1 


ise of ver. 28 into iii. 5, and then to interpret Cf. De Wette. 
aot. according to i. 20. 


156 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


elders of Ephesus, Acts xxviii. 29, 30, the latter verse referring to those here 
mentioned. Sieffert (Herzog, R. E.): ‘* Gentile Christian Antinomians who 
abused Paul’s doctrine of freedom.’”’ Schultze (in Zéckler’s Handbuch): ‘‘ A 
Gnostic Antinomianism, against which Paul had contended in the Epistle to the 
Colossians, and especially Jude, and Peter in his Second Epistle; and whose 
adherents John means in his First Epistle, by the name of antichrists, combin- 
ing with false gnosis docetic error and a heathen life, as the head of whom 
Cerinthus appeared (Iren., i. 26; Euseb., iii. 28).”’ 


XXX. Ver. 10. ἡμερῶν δέκα. ’ 


So Alford: ‘*‘ The expression is probably used to signify a short and limited 
time (Gen. xxiv. 55; Num. xi. 19; Dan. i. 12. See also Num. xiv. 22; 1 Sam. 
i. 8; Job xix. 3; Acts xxv. 6).’’ Also Trench. Luthardt: ‘‘ A human measure, 
so that it is endurable.”? Stier: ‘‘ Whatever may be the fact with regard to 
these uncertain historical circumstances, the general meaning of this word will 
assure us that all times of tribulation are measured before the Lord, and that 
they will be cut short for salvation (Matt. xxiv. 22).’? Plumptre, however, fol- 
lowing Bahr’s Symbolik: ‘*‘ The number ten, the representative of complete- 
ness, and here, therefore, of persecution carried to its full extent, and lacking 
nothing that could make it thorough and perfect.”’ 


XXXI. Ver. 11. ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ δευτέρου. 


Cremer: that ‘‘to which they are appointed whose names are not written 
in the book of life, and which follows the general resurrection (xx. 12-15), must 
be a judgment which comes as a second and final sentence, and which is some- 
thing still future before the first resurrection, for the partakers of that resurrec- 
tion are not affected by it (xx. 6). Their perfect freedom from all the conse- 
quences of sin, and the full realization of their salvation, is also expressed in 
ii. 11.” Gebhardt: ‘‘ The second death, the intensified death, is the coming of 
sins to the eternal death, from which there is no resurrection; or to perdition 
(comp. xvii. 8, 11), which consists, not in the ‘ destruction of the wicked,’ but 
in the definite loss of happiness, in eternally restless pangs, and perpetual con- 
sciousness of consummated death.’? Trench quotes the gloss of Augustine: 
‘‘ Vita damnatorum est mors,’’ and notes, ‘‘ The δευτέρος θάνατος of this book is 
the yéeva of Matt. v. 29; Mark ix. 43-49; Luke xii. 5.” 


XXXII. Vv. 14, 15. 


Alford: ‘‘ We may remark: (1) That it is most according to the sense of the 
passage to understand these sins in the case of the Nicolaitans, as in that of 
those whom Balaam tempted, literally, and not mystically; (2) That the whole 
sense of the passage is against the identity of the Balaamites and Nicolaitans, 
and would be, in fact, destroyed by it. The mere existence of the etymological 
relation [see Diist. on ver. 6] is extremely doubtful.’”? So also Gebhardt. Trench 
identifies the Balaamites and Nicolaitans. 


XXXII. Ver. 17. μάννα. ψῆφον λευκὴν. 


Trench: ‘‘ The words, ‘the hidden manna,’ imply, that, however hidden now, 
its meaning shall not remain hidden evermore; and the best commentary on 
them is to be found at 1 Cor. ii. 9; 1 John iii. 2. The seeing Christ as he is, of 


NOTES. 157 


the latter passage, and, through this beatific vision, being made like to him, is 
identical with this eating of the hidden manna, which shall, as it were, be then 
brought forth from the sanctuary, the holy of holies, of God’s immediate pres- 
ence, where it was withdrawn from sight so long that all may partake of it; the 
glory of Christ, now shrouded and concealed, being then revealed to his peo- 
ple.” Following Ziillig, he has an elaborate argument to prove that there is 
a reference in ‘* the white stone”’ to the Urim and Thummim, on the ground 
that ψῆφος, in later Greek, means ‘‘ a precious stone,’’ and λευκὸς indicates ‘‘ the 
purest glistering white’ of the diamond; both the manna and the white stone 
** representing high-priestly privileges, which the Lord should at length impart 
to all his people, kings and priests unto God.’’ This is refuted by Plumptre in 
Smith’s Bible Dictionary, article ‘‘ Urim and Thummim;”’ and in his com- 
mentary, where he adopts Ewald’s view, ‘‘ who sees in the stone or ψῆφος of the | 
promise, the tessera hospitalis, by which, in virtue of forms or characters 
inscribed upon it, he who possessed it could claim from the friend who gave it, 
at any distance of time, a frank and hearty welcome. What I would suggest as 
an addition to this rises out of the probability, almost certainty, that some such 
tessera or ticket —a stone with the name of the guest written on it — was 
given to those who were invited to partake, within the precincts of the temple, 
of the feast that consisted wholly, or in part, of the meat that had been offered 
as a sacrifice. On this view, the second part of the promise is brought in har- 
mony with the first, and is made more directly appropriate: he who had the 
courage to refuse that tessera to the feast that defiled should receive another 
that would admit him to the supper of the Great King.’’? On the last clause, 
Plumptre: ‘‘ The inner truth that lies below the outward imagery would seem 
to be, that the conqueror, when received at the heavenly feast, should find upon 
the stone, or tessera, that gave him the right of entrance, a ‘new name,’ the 
token of a character transformed and perfected, — a name, the full significance 
of which should be known only to him who was conscious of the transformation, 
just as, in the experiences of our human life, ‘the heart knoweth his own bitter- 
ness, and the stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy’ (Prov. xiv. 10).” 


XXXIV. Ver. 28. τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν προωινόν. 


Luthardt, briefly: ‘‘ That the new day of Jesus Christ is to break upon 
him.’’? So Stier does not approve of the application of the words, in this con- 
nection, to Christ himself, but finds in them hrst the messenger heralding the 
day, and then the beginning of participation in the heavenly kingdom. Accord- 
ing to his scheme of interpretation, he finds the first realization of this in the 
Reformation. Tait: ‘‘A share in my kingdom at its first manifestation.” 
Plumptre, on the other hand: ‘‘ The fruition of his glorious presence... . 
When he gives that star, he gives himself (ch. xxii. 16). The star had of old 
been the emblem of sovereignty; cf. Num. xxiv. 17; Matt. ii. 2. It was the 
symbol of sovereignty on its brighter and benignant side, and was, therefore, 
the fitting and necessary complement of the attributes which had gone before. 
The king came not only to judge and punish and destroy, but also to illumine 
and cheer (Luke i. 78). . . . The conqueror in the great strife should receive 
light in its fulness, and transmit that light to others (Dan. xii. 3).”’ 


158 : THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 1. The art. before ὄνομα (rec.) is, according to A, C, &, 11, 12, al., with 
Beng. and the more modern critics, to be deleted. — The καί before ζῇς, occurring 
instead of ὅτι, defended by Mill (Prol., ὃ 1007 sqq.), received by Matth., follows 
ὅτι (Beng., Griesb., etc.) in a diplomatic as well as exegetical regard. — Ver. 2. 
στήρισον, according to A, C, 4, 6, 8, etc., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]; cf. Luke 
xxii, 32; Winer, p. 85. The form στήριξον (rec., δὲ, Beng.) is, like the variations 
στηρίζων and τήρησον, an emendation. — μέλλει ἀποθανεῖν, rec. Yet the μέλλει has 
scarcely support in Arethas. Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.] have written correctly 
according to A, C, δὲ, 12, 28, Vulg., Syr., éueAdov, to which the emendation ἔμελ- 
Aev (ἤμελλεν, 16) also points. The var. ἔμελες (ἔμελλες, ἤμελλες) occurs in such 
witnesses (2, 3, 4, 6, al., Arab., Matth.) as propose ἀποβάλλειν (ἀποβαλεῖν) instead 
of the sufficiently guaranteed ἀποθανεὶν (A, 8, Vulg., Syr., Lach., Tisch. [W. and 
H.]; besides which there is also the var. ἀποθνήσκειν --- τοῦ θεοῦ μου), A, C, &, 2, 6, 
7, 9, al., Vulg., Syr., Andr., al., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The omis- 
sion of the pronoun in some witnesses (see Beng., rec.) is, perhaps, not without 
‘a theological purpose. — Ver. 3. The words καὶ ἤκουσας καὶ τῆρει, Matth. has 
deleted according to his five Codd. (cf. 2, 3, 4, 6, al., in Wetst.), but against A, 
C, δὰ, Vulg., rec. edd. — ἐπί oe before ὡς κλ. (rec., δὲ, against A, 12, 28, Vulg., al.) 
is derived from the conclusion. — Ver. 4. «ai before ἐν Zapd. (rec.) rejected 
already by Mill (Prol., ὃ 1248) and Griesb. upon the ground of A, C, 2, 4, 6, al. 
— Instead of ἃ οὐκ ἐμολ. (rec. A, B, C, δὲ, al.), Tisch. (1859) for not improbable, 
inner reasons has written 6 (Vulg., al.). — Ver. 5. Instead of οὗτος (rec., Tisch.), 
read οὕτως, according to A, C, &, 2, 3, 9, al., Vulg., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and 
H.]. — Ver. 9. The form διδῶ (Lach. [W. and H.]) is, according to A, C, to be 
preferred to δίδωμι of the rec. edd.; cf. ii. 20, ἀφεῖς, 8: δέδωκα, incorrectly from 
ver. 8. — Instead of ἥξωσιν κ. προσκυνήσωσιν (rec., Griesb., Beng., Matt.), read 
ἥξουσιν κ. προσκυνήσουσιν according to A, C, δὰ, 14, 28 (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). 
Concerning the ind. fut. after ἵνα (xxii. 14, vi..11, xiv. 13), cf. Winer, p. 271. — 
Ver. 12. ἡ καταβαίνουσα, A, OC, &1, 12, 15, al., Griesb., Beng., etc.; cf. ii. 20. 
Elz.: ἣ καταβαίνει. ---- Ver. 15. εἴης, rec. But, according to C, &, 2, 4, al., read 
he (Mill, Prol., § 1111; Beng,, Lach., Tisch., Griesb.: ἦς); οἷ. 2 Cor. xi. 1.— 
Ver. 17. The article before ἐλεεινός (A, 6, 11, al., Griesb., Lach., Treg., Tisch.) 
is uncertain (N corr.). It is wanting in C (Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), and 
grammatically is not to be expected. — Ver. 19. Instead of ζήλωσον (rec., δὲ), read 
Greve according to A, C, 2, 4, 9, al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The emenda- 
tion ζήλου (in Wetst.) also occurs. 


Vv. 1-6. The epistle to the church at Sardis. 

Sardis, the ancient capital of the kings of Lydia, of whom Croesus was 
the last, in a rich plain irrigated by the auriferous Pactolus, bounded on the 
south by Mount Tmolus, lying about thirteen hours south of Thyatira, and 


CHAP. III. 1. 159 


three days’ journey east of Ephesus, was distinguished for its wealth and 
luxury. Under Tiberius, Sardis, with twelve other cities, suffered severely 
from an earthquake, and was restored by the assistance of the emperor.! In 
the history of the Christian Church, it does not again appear until the mid- 
dle of the second century, and then as the residence of the penis Melito.? 
The present Sardis is a paltry village. 

The church at Sardis is severely reproved ; yet it is rather intimated than 
expressly said as to wherein its wrong consisted. We are not to think of a 
proper, i.e., intentional hypocrisy,’ but of a mode of life which did not agree 
with the confession firmly maintained externally.4 Its members had a 
dead ® faith; they faltered in their faith, and lacked the works, and the 
holy, pure life, which proceed from the living power of the true faith.6— 
The supposition of Ewald, that their heathenish life protected the Christians 
at Sardis from being annoyed by the heathen, and, that, for this reason, 
nothing is said in the epistle concerning θλῖψις and ὑπομονῆ, is only reconciled 
with the text with great difficulty. At all events, the church had enough 
Christian appearance (ver. 1) to restrain the friendship of the heathen. 
But whether it had actually experienced no form of θλῖψις, even not from 
the Jews, and how this perhaps occurred, is not perceptible. 

Ver. 1. ὁ ἔχων τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ. This designation of the Lord is 
new rather as to form than as to sense; for Christ would not be everywhere 
Lord of the Church in the sense declared by the following predicate, and 
the entire description recurring in the commencement of the epistles (i. 12 
sqq-), if he were not the one “ having the seven spirits of God.”7 Christ, 
as the Son of God, has® the Spirit of God, as of the Father; thus Christ 
works and speaks through the Spirit in and to the churches,® and thus both 
designations of the Lord, ὁ ἔχων τὰ ἑπτὰ πνευμ. τ. θ. and (ὁ ἔχων) τοὺς ἑπτὰ 
ἀστέρας,19 appear in their inner connection. But, just because the ἔχειν τ. é, 
mv, τ. 0, applies to Christ in his relation to his Church, not as something par- 
ticular, but as something general, and as expressing a principle, the declara- 
tion ὁ ἔχον, x.7.4,, cannot be referred like, e.g., ὁ ἔχ. τ. ὀφθαλμόυς, κ.τ.λ. (il. 18), 
etc., in the beginning of the epistles, to any special manifestation of the 
Lord; neither to his omniscience, according to which he tries the hearts and 
reins, and also judges aright what is hidden; nor to his unlimited power 
to punish and reward.!8 The Lord designates himself, in general, as the one 
from whom the spiritual life-forces of the Church proceed,!* and who thus 
continually rules in his churches,!* sending forth the seven spirits as his 
Spirit, and speaking, reproving, warning, consoling, and promising through 
the same. In a like general way, the relation of Christ to the churches (il. 
1, 111. 14) is made prominent; yea, even the more special features in the 


1 Tacitus, Ann., ii. 47. 9 Cf., e.g., ii. 7, 11, 17, etc., with the intro- 
2 Eusebius, H. £., iv. 13, 26; v. 24. ductions to the epistles. 

3 Vitr. 10 Cf. i. 16, 20. 

4 Cf. Ebrard. 11 Cf. also Bengel, Ewald, Hengstenb., 
5 Vivid, 2: Ebrard. 

6 Cf. vv. 2, 3, 4. 12 Vitr., Ziill., De Wette. 

7 Cf. i. 4. 13 Hengstenb. 


8 Cf. v. 6. 14 Beng. 15 Ebrard. 


160 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
other titles to the epistles, with their more precise references to the special 
contents of the epistles, have, at the same time, an entirely general signifi- 
cance, and make known the specific position of the Lord with respect to his 
churches in general. Hence it is an arbitrary assumption, when Ebrard 
lays emphasis upon the fact that Christ, “in the first part of his missive, 
does not appeal to that point in his manifestation! which afterwards? is 
established with special reference to Sardis,’ viz., to the white robe; but to 
his general relation to all the seven churches.” There is, therefore, no 
foundation whatever for the explanation of this “remarkable” circumstance, 
by the fact that the epistle to the church at Sardis has, in addition to its 
historical, a special “‘ prophetical sense ;” and, as the first of the epistles 
referring to the “synchronistic ” condition of the church, it symbolizes 
that “among the ecclesiastical bodies which arose in consequence of the 
Reformation,’’ in which “ there was a possession and boast of pure doctrine, 
while there was such an over-estimate of doctrine and the objective institu- 
tion of the Church, that, on that account, the continual reformation of the 
life was neglected.” 4 

Upon oida depends, first of all, the accus. cov τὰ ἔργα, then the clause ὅτι 
ὄν, ἔχ., «.7.4., before which a καὶ dare not be inserted.5 The inner relation 
of the two expressions placed alongside of one another, without an express 
combination, is that the Lord, just because of his knowledge of the imper- 
fection of the works of the church (ver. 2), knows that the same, although 
it has the name that it lives, is nevertheless, in truth, dead. The expression 
ὄνομα ἔχεις refers neither to the individual name of the bishop, as Zosimus, 
Vitalis, etc.,6 nor to the name of his office;?7 but designates the reputation 
and esteem of the church,’ yet in its opposition to actual truth, which is 
then expressly made prominent.® The “life,” if it were actually present, 
and then, of necessity, would efficaciously manifest itself, would be “ to live 
according to Christ ;” 1° but the judgment has the force: νεκρὸς ei; 1.e., not 
“nigh to death,” 1! but instead of the indeed seeming, yet deficient, life, 
death is there. This, of course, is to be understood, not unconditionally, 
but as, according to what follows already in ver. 2, where the call to watch 
sounds forth, the being dead is represented as a sleep,!? it is to be limited 
according to the spiritual meaning of the expressions ζῇς and νεκρὸς & Cf. 
Jas. ii. 17. 

Ver. 2. γίνου ypnyopav, become watchful. This idea, Grot. interprets as 
indefinite : “ beware of all sins.” N. de Lyra, with an oblique reference: 
“ watchful for the recognition of defects in thyself and thy flock.” The Lord 


1 j. 13 sqq. 

2 Ver. 4 8q. 

3 This is not even altogether correct; the 
‘“‘white robes,” iii. 4 sqq., do not have a 
special relation to the Lord’s garment, i. 13. 

4 p. 572. 

5 De Wette: “And that thou hast the 
name.” Cf. ver. 15. 

6 C. a Lap., Beng. 

7 Hengstenb. 


8 N. de Lyra, Zegar, Areth., Ewald, etc. 

2 De Wette, Ebrard. Cf. Herodot., vii., 
p. 485: ἡ στρατηλασία --- ὄνομα μὲν εἶχε, ws 
ὑπ᾽ ᾿Αθήνας ἐλαύνει, κατίετο δὲ ἐς πᾶσαν τὴν 
᾿Ἐλλάδα (‘The expedition had a name, as 
though directed against Athens, while it was 
really put in motion against all Greece’’). 

10 Grot. 

11 Hichh. 

12 Cf. Eph. v. 14. 


CHAP. III. 2. 161 


demands the condition of spiritual watchfulness, which is opposed to indo- 
lence or security, as spiritual sleep or death, and is occupied in holy works, 
or a holy life.1 Upon the essential identity of meaning in the two ideas 
of spiritual death and sleep, depends the connection of the command yivou 
yenyopav with the judgment νεκρὸς ei, and, again, with the admonition com- 
bined with the yivov γρηγορῶν, viz., καὶ ornp. τ. A. ἃ ἐμ. ἀποθανεῖν. The last 
member of ver. 2, in its connection with yap, and its reference to the works,? 
is further explained from the proper conception of the one as well as of the 
other figurative designation. — καὶ στήρισον τὰ λοιπὰ ἃ ἔμελλον ἀποθανεῖν. Grot.: 
“ See to it lest, by neglecting one charge, you become altogether flagitious.” 
Thus the τὰ λοιπὰ appear as the blessings still remaining to their own souls,? 
“the virtues which still have remained with thee;” as Ewald says, who, by 
the explanation necessary with his recension of the text (ἃ ἔμελλες ἀποθανεῖν) : 
“Strengthen the other things which, by dying, or keeping at leisure, thou 
art about to lose,” commends that interpretation of the τὰ λοιπὰ the very 
least.4 The neuter form by no means hinders us from referring the expres- 
sion personally, i.e., to that part of the entire church which was already on 
the point of dying ® This personal reference is supported as well by the 
idea of the ἀποθανεῖν," as also of the στήρισον. Only we must not understand 
“the rest ” as meaning the laity,’ under the presupposition that the angel of 
the church was the bishop, or the college of officers (Vorsteher); but the 
church contemplated in its unity and entirety, and, just because of the con- 
nection of its members, made in a mass responsible,’ has, in its actual reality, 
on the one hand,” still vigorous living members, but also, on the other hand, 
and that, too, in a preponderating majority, those who could be preserved 
from the death already threatened only by strengthening on the part of the 
church again recovering, in its entirety, unto active, wakeful life. — The 
imp. ἔμελλον can be understood from the standpoint of the writer of the 
letter, just as the aor. ἐμαρτύρησε (1, 2); but it is more probable, that, as in 
the immediately following εὕρηκα, the Lord himself, who speaks, looks back 
upon the investigation of the’ church previously undertaken by himself.!2 — 
ov γὰρ εὕρηκα, x.7.A. The entire preceding admonition to the church, in mass, 
to be watchful, and to strengthen their members already dying by rising to 
a new, energetic life, is founded upon the reference to their defective works, 
in which it has become visible to the eyes of the Lord that they have been 
dead,}8 or sleeping. By ἔργα, as in ver. 1,14 the entire activity of the inner 
life in its-external activity and deportment is designated; it is not “good 
works ” 15 that are meant, as though they were blamed only because they were 


1 Cf. Eph. v. 8-14. ii. 17; Rom. i. 11, xvi. 25; Jas. v.8. Cf. Ps. 
2 Cf. also ver. 4. li. 14, exii. 8. 
3 Beng. 8 Hengstenb. 
4 Ew. ii.: ‘*The other things on account ® See on i. 20, ii. 15. 
of which thou wouldst die.” 10 Ver. 4. 
5 Cf. Ezek. xxxiv. 4; 1 Cor. i. 26 sqq. So 11 Ew. 
Andr., Areth., Calov., Vitr., Eichh., De Wette, 12 Cf. De Wette, also Volkm. 
Ebrard, ete. 13 Ver. 1. 
6 Cf. the νεκρὸς εἷ, ver. 1. 14 (Οἵ, Matt. vii. 20 sqq.; Hengstenb. 


7 Luke xxii. 32; 1 Thess. iii. 2, 13; 2 Thess. 16 Ebrard. 


162 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


not altogether perfect in their goodness. This idea, which in itself is not 
altogether incompatible with the tenor of the words, is much too weak for 
what precedes. It would first be necessary, with De Wette, to find a litotes: 
“Thy works are not less than perfect.” But just in the simple precision, as 
the words proceed from the mouth of the Lord who judges his church, do 
they have their most forcible significance. The Lord who has tested! the 
works of the church according to the absolute norm? has found them not 
‘perfect, and therefore not corresponding to the measure applied to them.? 
Whether much or little be wanting for the required perfection of the works, 
is not to be asked: it is enough that the only and unconditionally prescribed 
measure is not reached. The express allusion to the absolute norm of all 
Christian morality is here the. more forcible, as the church, according to 
human judgment, has the name that it lives. Incorrect references, in 
Grot.: “You are inconstant; some things you do well, others ill;” and in 
Bengel: “ However good the beginning was.” 

Ver. ὃ. From the reproach ὅ follows ὃ the admonition to repentance. The 
πῶς dare neither be expressly changed into a ποία,Ϊ nor be explained in a 
sense proceeding therefrom.§ Castalio, correctly: “* How thou wast in- 
structed.” ® But it is not made prominent as to “ how finely” the church 
received the doctrine, i.e., how well they began their life of faith ; 19. there 
is also no allusion to the simplicity and purity of the apostolic mode of 
preaching.44. In accord with the text, Ebrard explains: “The ‘what’ 
received by Sardis, it had maintained; but the ‘ how,’ i.e., the manner in 
which it formerly had received and heard the ‘what,’ it had lost. Once it 
had received this with holy zeal of heart, but now only with the head.” A 
description of the πῶς, as well in reference to the apostolic proclamation as — 
the reception on the pait of the hearers, is given by Paul (1 Thess. i. 5 sqq., 
ii. 1 sqq.; 1 Cor. ii. 1 sqq.). The manifestation of spirit and power which 
occurs with the preaching belongs to the right mode of hearing and receiv- 
ing, as it is that mode which is efficacious unto sanctification; cf. Eph. iv. 
20; Col. ii. 6. Thus the quickening and refreshal of the dead Christian 
life must actually be begun by the remembrance (μνημ.) of their original 
reception of the gospel whereby the new holy life was wrought. Besides, 
the two other points of the admonition, καὶ τήρει καὶ μετανόησον, and that, too,’ 
in immediate sequence of this, have their justification in the fact that the 
received divine truth, when it is maintained, has in itself the power to 
work true repentance, and thus evermore to cleanse, strengthen, and perfect 
the new life. — Not without artificial refinement does Bengel distinguish 
the ἔιληφας (“ with the heart”) from the ἤκουσας (“‘ with the ear”), and then 
remarks on τήρει, “in order that your reception may not be in vain,” and on 
μετανόησον, “in order that your hearing may not be in vain.” Against this 


1 Cf. 1 John iv. 4. 6 μνημ. ovv., ii. 5. Cf. ii. 16. 
2 ἐνώπιον Tov θεοῦ μου; i.e., God being wit- 7 Heinr. 

ness and judge. Grot., Vitr., De Wette, etc. 8 Grot.: ‘Doctrine such as thou hast re- 
3 Cf. Col. iv. 12; John xvi. 24, xvii. 13; ceived from the apostles.” 

1 John i. 3; 2 John 12. 9 Cf. Aret., C. a Lap., Vitr., Beng., Ew., 
4 Ver.1. Hengstenb. Ebrard. 


5 Vv. 1, 2. 10 Beng. Cf. ver. 2. 11 Vitr. 
o 


CHAP, III. 4. 163 


distinction between ἔιληφας and ἤκουσας in fact, while it rather lies in the 
mode of statement,! the order of words already declares, which we would 
_ then expect to be reversed; the relation stated between the two ideas τήρει 
and μετανόησον is, in itself, arbitrary. The change from perf. to aor., in case 
such fine distinction were actually intended by the writer, can be explained 
only with Ew. ii.: The Holy Spirit appears to be still present in the church 
which had formerly received him, but the first hearing of the gospel lies 
simply in the past. With the perfect &Anga thus understood, the judgment 
on ver. 1 (vexp, ei) entirely harmonizes, because the latter is not absolute.? 
— In the second sentence of ver. 3, just as in 11. 5, 16, the threat follows as 
to a case where the requirement of the Lord is unfulfillede Yet the οὖν 
peculiar to this passage does not indicate that the fruitlessness of the warn- 
ing with respect to the bad condition of the church is presupposed.? Against 
this, the ἐὰν already declares, which sets forth the future as either thus or 
possibly otherwise.* But it refers either to the preceding admonition,® or 
to the accusation of ver. 2.6 The latter seems the more correct as the 
expression γοηγορήσης connects with ver. 2. — ἥξω ὡς κλέπτης. Not only is this 
based, as to the expression, upon Matt. xxiv. 42 sqq., but the entire mode of 
contemplation, according to which the special judgment upon a particular 
congregation appears as a proof of the Lord’s coming to final judgment,’ 
is previously found in the eschatological discourse of the Lord, since there 
the special] judgment upon Jerusalem appears combined with the final judg- 
ment at the parousia. — οὐ μη. Cf. Winer, p. 471.— ποίαν ὥραν. The acc. 
determinative of time § is not only Hebraic,® but also Greek.” 10 

Ver. 4. The accusation, admonition to repentance, and threat thus far 
made to the entire church, are contrasted (ἀλλ), by way of limitation, in 
regard to individual members, with the commendation that these have kept 
themselves free from the general sinfulness, and a corresponding promise; 
cf. 11. 4, θ. --- ἔχεις. Because, as members, they belong to the entire church. 
Beng.: “These, even though indeed few, had not separated themselves ; 
otherwise the angel of the church would not have them.” -- ὀνόματα. “ Men 
designated by name;”?! οἵ. xi. 13; Acts i. 15; Num. i. 2,18, 20. Ewald. 
An allusion to the ὄνομα ἔχεις 13 is not to be acknowledged, because there the 
conception is entirely different from here. — ἅ οὐκ ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτων. 
The figurative expression is arbitrarily pressed if the iuara be interpreted as 
something special, whether as referring to the bodies as the clothing of the 
soul,!* or the consciences, or the righteousness of Christ put on by faith. 
It is, further, without all foundation, when Ebrard, in the entire figurative 
expression, tries to find “a spiritual self-pollution arising from spiritual self- 


1 John xvii. 3; 1 Cor. xi. 23. 8 John iv. 52; Acts x. 8. 
2 See above on ver. 1; also cf. ver. 4 of this 9 De Wette, Ebrard. 
chapter. 10 Cf. A. Matthiae, Ausfthl. Griech. 
3% De Wette. Gramm., ὃ 424; Winer, p. 215. 
4 Winer, pp. 273, 275. 11 Vatabl. 
5 * As thou hast been so forcibly aroused 12 Hengstenb., Ebrard. 
and warned.”’ { 13 Areth., Zeger. 
6 « As thou 80 greatly needest repentance.” 14 Alcas., Tirin., Grot., Prie. 


? Cf. ii. 5, 16. 13 (δῖον. 


164 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


concupiscence,” — “spiritual onanism.” Too much also is made of the 
figure if the presupposed purity of the garment be derived from baptism by 
a mistaken appeal to vil. 14.1 N. de Lyra already correctly abides by the 
general idea whereby the “ being defiled” occurs by means of sin,? in which 
sense, of course, it may be said that the ἱμάτια are the life itself, and actions 
of works,? or profession and life.4 We have not to ask throughout as to 
'what is properly meant by the garment; the entire figure of the defiling of 
the clothing is a designation of the impure and unholy life and conversa- 
tion.5 To the commendatory recognition, corresponds also the promise of 
the reward: καὶ περιπατήσουσιν er’ ἐμοῦ ἐν Aevxoic (Viz., ἱματίοις). Incorrectly, 
Aretius, who identifies the “ white garments ” with the undefiled garments: 
“They will persevere in the pursuit of good works.” The white garments, 
with their bright “ hue of victory,’’ ὁ are peculiar to those in heaven.? They 
who, in their earthly lives, have kept their garments undefiled will walk with 
Christ 8 in white garments, since, thus adorned, they will live in “ the state 
of immortal glory,” ® before the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the full 
and blessed enjoyment of his fellowship. [See Note XXXV., p. 183.] But 
the more definitely the promise περιπ. μετ᾽ ἐμ. ἐν λευκοῖς stands with respect to 
the testimony of acknowledgment ἃ οὐκ ἐμόλυναν τι, iu. avt., — especially as 
marked by the addition ὅτι ἄξιοί εἰσιν, ---- [Ὡ 8 more remote appears the side ref- 
erence to the heavenly priesthood of the blessed which is to be indicated by 
the white garments, especially if, in connection therewith, the Jewish custom 
be thought of, that the priests examined before the Sanhedrim were clad in 
black or white garments, according as any defect were or were not found in 
their bodies.!° — ὅτε ἄξιοί εἰσιν. The foundation is entirely in the sense pre- 
sented in xvi. 6.11 As, there, they who have shed blood must drink blood, so 
here, white garments are promised the undefiled because they are worthy of 
this. The idea, however, lying at the basis of the remuneration,” leads also, 
in this passage, where the discourse is concerning reward, not to the Roman- 
Catholic idea of a merit, because, as Calov. correctly says, in substance, 
“Christ alone, by faith, renders them worthy.” Life itself,4® with all its 
powers exercised by those clad in white robes, is a free gift of the grace of 
the Lord; a meritum could be spoken of only when man, by his own powers, 
keeps himself undefiled. Thus, however, John designates only “a congru- 
ency between the acts and the honor rendered to them, even though the 
honor exceed the act.” 14 

Ver. 5. ὁ νικῶν. This designation recurring uniformly at the close of 
every epistle, and therefore not of a conception to be united by means 
of οὕτως, results from what precedes. Here is meant the energetic manifes- 
tation of the life received in faith, which cannot occur without a victorious 


1 Beda, Rib., C. a Lap.; cf. Zeger, Heng- 8 wer ἐμοῦ. Cf. Luke xxiii. 48; John xvii. 
stenb. 24. 

2 Cf. also Ew., De Wette, Bleek, Stern. 9 N. de Lyra. 

3 Aretius. 10 Schottgen, in loc. Cf. Vitr., Ziill. 

4 Vitr. 11 Cf. xiv. 13; Rom. ii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 10. 

5 Cf. ver. 2. 12 De Wette. Cf. xvi. 5, the δίκαιος ei. 

6 Beng. 13 Cf. ver. 1. 


7 Ver. 5, vi. 11, vi. 9, xix. 8. 14 Grot. Cf. Vitr. (Cf. Luke xx. 35.} 


ἢ CHAP. III. 7-13. 165 


conflict with the world and one’s own flesh. An express pointing backward 
to what precedes is made by the οὕτως, which makes the promise here be- 
stowed upon the victor (οὔτ. περιβ. ἐν. iu. Aeve.) } appear to coincide with that 
which (ver. 4) was given to the one whose garments were not defiled.2— The 
second promise, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐξαλείψω τὸ ὄν. ait. ἐκ τ. βίβλ. τ. ζωῆς, has likewise refer- 
ence to what precedes, because not only he who has the name that he lives, 
but he who besides actually lives,’ can remain written in the book of life. 
The figure of the book of life* is not derived from “the genealogical rec- 
ords of the priests,” ® but from lists such as, e.g., the magistrates kept, and 
from which the names of deceased citizens were stricken. A man is not 
written in the book of life? when he becomes participant of new spiritual 
life (cf. ver. 1), when he receives the quickening truth (cf. ver. 3), or be- 
comes a child and heir of God through faith in Christ. This ethical accom- 
modation referring to the temporal conduct of man is actually not present. 
In the book of life, which according to its nature is eternal, there is from 
the beginning of the world ® God’s attestation of the eternal salvation which 
those written in the book are to experience. The rejection of what is deter- 
ministic, and the maintenance of what is ethical, lie in the further declara- 
tion whereby the of course not to be realized possibility of the erasure of the 
name from the book of life is stated. Yet it is in reality by the free con- 
duct of the believer, that his name may remain in the book. The name of 
the victor remaining faithful and walking worthily, will not be blotted out 
of the book of life; the victor, therefore, will receive hereafter the heavenly 
gracious reward of eternal life with the Lord, while those not written in the 
book of life will be rejected by the Lord. [See Note XXXVI., p. 183.] 
Still, in a third way, is the promise given the victor expressed: καὶ ὁμολογήσω, 
«.7.A. This stands, of course, as the recurrence of τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ already sig- 
nifies, in connection with what immediately precedes, yet not as Eichh. 
states: “And as often as recitation is made from it, I will declare his 
praises.” With the idea of the book of life, that of the frequent reading 
of the name is not in itself consistent; 1! and the ὁμολ,, «.7.4., can only 13 have 
the sense that the Lord, speaking as Judge, expressly testifies that he knows 
the name of the victor (written in the book of life) as the name of one of 
his own, and, therefore, that the one named belongs to him, the Lord, and 
on this account shall have part in the glory of his kingdom.#8 

Vv. 7-13. The epistle to the church at Philadelphia. — Philadelphia in 
Lydia, named after its founder, King Attalus Philadelphus of Pergamos, lay 
thirteen hours south-east of Sardis, likewise at the foot of Tmolus. The 
present Alah Schahr, a not entirely unimportant town, inhabited by Turks 
and Christians, contains many ruins of ancient Phil. —Of the Christian 


1 Cf. on the ἐν, Matt. xi. 8. Winer, p. 361. 7 As was said here in the 2d ed. So also 
2 Cf. also Ebrard, Volkm. Klief.: cf.,on the other hand, Gebhardt, p. 154. 
3 Cf. ver. 1. 8 “Tn baptism.”? C.a Lap. 
4 ΧΗ. 8. xvii. 8). τα 12/15, xxl 27. CE. 9 xiii. 8, and often. 

Ps. Ixix. 29; Isa. iv. 3; Exod. xxxii. 32 sqq.; Δ σαὶ 15, xxi. 27. 

Dan. xii. 1; Phil. iv. 3; Luke x. 20. 11 Cf. also xx. 12 sqq. 
5 Vitr., Schdttgen. See on ver. 4. 15 Cf. Matt: x..32; Luke xii..8. 


6 Cf. Wetst. 13 Cf. xxi. 27, xix. 9; Matt. vii. 23, xxv. 12. 


166 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


church at Phil., this Apoc. epistle contains the first trace. A Christian 
prophetess, Ammia, was mentioned at Phila.1 According to the Apostolic 
Constitutions, vii. 46, Peter installed there the first bishop, Demetrius. 
Many expositors? have regarded a bishop Quadratus® the receiver of the 
Apocalyptic message. The apologist Quadratus was bishop of Athens.4— 
The church, like that at Smyrna (ii. 9), was exposed to the hostility of the 
Jews; but, although by no means of imposing importance on account of its 
extent or other external relations, it had confessed the name of the Lord 
Jesus with patient fidelity (ver. 8): among the promises imparted to this 
church is, accordingly, that also of true victory over the hostile Jews, who 
in all humility were to seek a share in the salvation discerned in the church 
(ver. 9). This relation to Judaism is testified also by the entire mode of 
conception and expression of the epistle, which with especial definiteness 
supports itself upon the divine foundation of the O. T., so that, in opposition 
to false Judaism as the synagogue of Satan, the Church of Jesus Christ 
appears the more distinctly as the true people of God. 

Ver. 7. The designation of the Lord is derived, of course, not immedi- 
ately and in its particular details from i. 12 sq., but is formed with reference 
to the contents of the epistle that follows;5 yet the essential meaning of the 
predicates here used is no other tlian that expressed in the entire description, 
i. 12 sq., as only the peculiar mode of statement is conditioned by the oppo- 
sition to false Judaism. Christ, rejected and traduced by the “synagogue 
of Satan,” is nevertheless the absolutely Holy One, the true Messiah, and the 
Lord of the earth. —6 ἅγιος. Incorrectly Eichh., Heinr.: “ A divine ambas- 
sador.”’ So, too, the conception of holiness is improperly obtained by Caloy.: 
“Christ, the Holy One, as the model of the holiness of bishops;” by Vi- 
tringa:® “Christ the Holy One of Israel,” as the antitype of the high priest, 
the prefect of the heavenly sanctuary;” by Ewald:8 “Who, on account of 
his very holiness, avenges the injury inflicted upon Christians by proud 
Jews.”2 Too indefinite is Ebrard’s reference: “To whom every thing un- 
godly, even what is most deceptive, is an offence.” The ὁ ἅγιος, as well as 
the ὁ ἀληθινός, receives its living relation only in connection with the 6 ἔχων τ. 
κλεῖν, and with respect to the epistle which follows. Incorrect are all inter- 
pretations of the ὁ ἀληθινός depending upon the presumption that ἀληθινός is 
synonymous with ἀψευδῆς or dAndye,!° while ἀληθινός means “ genuine, with its 
idea corresponding to its name.” So the Lord calls himself (111. 14) ὁ μάρτυς 
ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός, because he is a trustworthy witness, and,just on that 
account, such an one as actually merits this name. Cf. vi. 10, xix. 2, 9, xvi. 
7; John xvii. 3;11 1 John v. 20 sqq.; Heb. ix. 24. Passages also like xxi. 
5, xxii. 6, xv. 8, Heb. x. 22, are to be explained according to this idea. In- 


1 Cf. Euseb., H. 1... v. 17. 9 A comparison may here be made with vi. 


2 Cf. N. de Lyra. 10, where, however, this energetic expression 

3 Perhaps according to Eusebius as above. of holiness in judicial righteousness is expli- 
Cf. iii. 37. citly marked. 

417. E., iv. 123. 10 Cf., on the other hand, Meyer on John 

5 Cf. Ebrard. 6 Cf. also Ziill. vii. 28; Trench, Synonyms of the N. Ts 

7 Isa. vi. Cambr., 1854, § 8. 


8 Cf. also De Wette, Stern, etc. 11 Cf. Isa. Ixv. 16, LXX. 


CHAP. III. 7. 167 


correct, therefore, is the exposition of Vitr.: “Christ as the Mediator of 
divine truth, as the wearer of the true Urim and Thummim.” Calov.: 
“ Because he wishes that they who have received it of him guard the word 
of truth.” Ewald, Stern, etc.: “is promises in reference to the reward are 
fulfilled to the faithful.” Ebrard: “ Who does not join in the falsehoods of 
those who malign Philadelphia, but on his part (ver. 10) will bring the truth 
to light.” The proper meaning of the expression ἀληθινός has been correctly 
apprehended by Alcas., C. a Lap., and Grot.,1 but has been misapplied by 
them, as they have combined the two predicates ὁ ἅγιος, ὁ ἀληθινός : “ Who 
has true and perfect holiness — the superlative of holiness.” But the ὁ ἀληθ. 
has in itself? an important meaning. Hengstenb. has given the correct 
interpretation, when in reference to ver. 9 he mentions the calumnies of the 
Jews, attested by Justin Martyr, who wished to see in the Lord only “the one 
hanged,” and therefore a false Messiah. As opposed to such calumniating 
Jews, Christ is designated as the absolutely holy, and connected therewith 
as the true, i.e., the actual and genuine Messiah, heir and Lord of the truly 
abiding theocracy (ὁ éy. τ. «A. τ. Δαυΐδ, x.7.4.). In a similar sense, the apostles 
in their discourses to the Jews have vindicated the holiness, and, accordingly, 
the true Messiahship and Sonship of God of the Crucified. — ὁ ἔχων τὴν κλεῖν 
Δαυίδ, κιτιΔ. Incorrect is the conjecture τ, κλεῖν Tage) (Τώφεθ), made by Wolf, 
in consideration of i. 18.4 Without any ground, N. de Lyra explains® the 
key of David, by appealing to Luke xi. 52, xxiv. 32, as “the power to open 
the understanding of the Scriptures,” and, accordingly, the words ὁ ἀνοίγων, 
«.7.4.: “No one can hinder those from understanding the Scriptures whom 
he wishes to instruct, nor can any one understand them unless he unlock 
them.” Soon ver. 9. In like manner is the explanation of Alcasar solved, 
concerning the cross of Christ as “the instrument of omnipotence.” With 
entire correctness is “the key of David,” and the succeeding description of 
its management, interpreted by almost all expositors in general, of the Lord’s 
own supreme power ® in the kingdom of God. The expression contains an 
allusion to Isa. xxii. 22,7 but also ® a significant modification of that passage, 
since the Lord here appears as the one who has not the key of the house of 
David,°® but the “key of David.” Consequently the Lord is represented not 
as a second Eliakim, as his antitype, which is also in itself inapposite, but 
he appears in a series with King David himself, as heir of his royal house 
and kingdom.’ The key of David belongs to one who, as David himself, 
has a peculiar right, and is Lord?! in his royal house, — not in the temple,}? 
—and accordingly in the entire kingdom of David. But this is applicable to 
Christ as the new David 15 unconditionally, because the ancient David, with 


1 Cf. Ew. ii. 

2 Cf. xix. 11. 

ὃ Acts iii. 14, iv. 27, 30, vii. 52, xiii. 35. Cf. 
John xiii. 19. 

4 Cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 10. 

5 Cf. also Primas, Vieg., Zeger. 

6 Cf. Matt. xxviii. 18. 

7 Where it is said concerning Eliakim : δώσω 
ἀντῷ τὴν κλεῖδα ὀίκου Δαυΐδ ἐπὶ τῷ ὦμῳ αὐτοῦ, 


καὶ ἀνοίξει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὃ ἀποκλείων, καὶ κλεί- 
σει καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὃ ἀνοίγων. 

‘8 Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

9 As Grot., Calov., Ewald, De Wette, etc., 
here explain. 10 Cf. ν. 5, xxii. 16; Luke i. 82. 

11 Cf. also Ahrens, ἃ. a. O. 8. 13. 

12 Cf. C. a Lap., Vitr., Ziill., ete. 

13 Cf. Hos. iii.5; Jer. xxx.9; Ezek. xxxiv. 
23 sqq., XXXVii. 24 sqq. 


168 - THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


his theocratic kingdom, was only a prophetic type of the Lord and his eternal 
kingdom. Just asin Acts ii. 29 sqq., xiii. 22 sqq., 33 sqq., this is here applied 
to unbelieving Jews. — ὁ ἀνοΐγων, κιτιΔ. The construction in the second mem- 
ber is Hebraic,! as the participle makes a transition to the finite tense,? with- 
out on that account requiring a ὃς to be supplied before «Aeie.2 The entire 
thought of ὁ ἀνοίγων ---- οὐδεὶς ἀνοίγει depends upon the predicate ὁ ἔχων τ. κλεῖν 
τ. A., and is an explanation thereof. But the idea is defined too narrowly, 
on the one hand, by those who, by a comparison of Matt. xvi. 19, regard the 
power of Christ here as being that to forgive sins, and thus to receive into 
the kingdom of heaven,‘ and, on the other, by those who derive from ver. 8 
(θύραν ἀνεῳγμ.) a limitation to ver. 7, and thence infer that Christ opens the 
opportunity for entrance into his kingdom;® while, on the contrary, ver. 8 
makes prominent only a special point of what in ver. 7 is said far more 
generally, and applied on the other side (καὶ κλείει, x.7.A.). Not once is the 
distinction of the earthly and heavenly kingdoms to be marked, but the latter 
is to be regarded in its indivisible completeness, as Christ the Lord and King 
of the realm admits therein or excludes therefrom. The supreme power of 
Christ, belonging to him as the true Messiah, is declared of him entirely in 
connection with all preceding predicates, and the succeeding epistles.?7. As 
an essential part thereto, there belongs especially the irrevocable and inevit- 
able twofold decision in the final judgment. [See Note XXXVII., p 183.] 
Ver. 8. With oidé cov τὰ ἔργα we are not to immediately combine the ὅτι 
juxp. éx. δυν. as though the latter words ὃ contain an explicit statement of the 
ἔργα; 3 for, in a formal respect, it is impracticable to regard the entire clause 
idob — ἀυτῆν as a parenthesis; and, as to the subject, the point expressed in 
the assumed parenthesis belongs already also in the idea of ra ἔργα. But 19 
by the words oid cov τὰ ἔργα, the Lord testifies chiefly, without any further 
determination, that every thing is known to him with which the church in its 
present life is engaged.!1. To the church at Philadelphia this is a word of 
commendation and consolation. This results from the words of the Lord 
which immediately follow: ἰδού, δέδωκα, «.7.A.. in which the thought is ex- 
pressed that the fidelity maintained by the church, notwithstanding its 
external helplessness, depends not only upon a gracious gift of the Lord, 
but also serves the purpose, — and that, too, again through his government, 
— that through the faithful church the Lord’s kingdom is increased. This 
sense depends chiefly upon the correct interpretation of the figurative ex- 
pression ded. ἐν, σ. θύραν ἀνεῳγμένην, «.7.A. The door is opened, viz., either in 
order that the church itself may enter,!? or in order that by means of the 
church others may enter.18 According to the former idea, N. de Lyra," etc., 
explain: “a door is opened for understanding the Scriptures.” Arethas: 
τὴν εἴσοδον πρὸς ἀπολαυσιν (“ entrance to fruition”). Bengel: “Entrance into 


1 De Wette. 8 Cf. the ὅτι, ver. 1. 

2 Cf., e.g., Am. v. 8. ® Bengel. Cf. also Ewald, De Wette. 

3 Beng. 10 Cf, Ebrard. 

4 C.a Lap., Vitr., Eicbh., etc. 11 Cf. ver. 1, ii. 2. 

5 Ew.; cf. De Wette, Ebrard. 12 Cf. Acts xiv. 27. 

6 Cf. Calov., Stern, Hengstenb., etc. 13 Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 12; Col. iv. 3. 


7 Especially ver. 9. Cf. ver. 12. 14 Cf. ver. 7. 


CHAP, III. 8. 169 


- the joy of thy Lord, and meanwhile into unhindered progress in all good.” 
Eichh. : “ Entrance to me lies open to thee; ”’ in the shallow sense: “1 desire 
well for thee.”! Ziillig: “Entrance into the temple.” Hengstenb.:? “ En- 
trance to the house of David, or the kingdom of God.” According to 
another mode of representation, it is explained by Andr., Rib., Alcas., C. a 
Lap., Stern, Grot., Calov., Vitr., Wolf, Ew., De Wette, Ebrard, etc., who 
think of the favorable and successful opportunity for the missionary activity 
of the church. A decision in favor of this explanation, and that, too, in 
reference, not to heathen,® but to Jews who are to be won by the fidelity of 
the believing church, is made by the connection with ver. 9. A special 
intimation of the connection of δέδωκα, διδῶ, and ποιῆσω, lies even in the three- 
fold ἰδού A declaration concerning the entrance of the church into 
heavenly joy, of which alone, according to the first mode of statement, we 
can think, could scarcely be made at the very beginning of the epistle. The 
statement correctly understood stands, consequently, in close connection with 
the designation of the Lord, ver. 7, ὁ ἔχων τ. κλεὶν A., x.7.A., and emphasizes a 
special point, corresponding to the further contents of the epistle, of the 
supreme power in reference to his kingdom, to be ascribed from ver. 7, in 
unlimited universality, to the Lord; i.e., Christ expressly, and with visible 
results, attests his Davidic power of the keys in this, that he has opened a 
door before his faithful and steadfast church, through which a multitude of 
still unbelieving Jews are to enter. For the words ἰδού, ποιήσω αὐτοὺς, iva 
ἥξουσι, «.7.A., ver. 9, are in substance an exposition of ἐδού, ded. ἐν. σ. θύραν dvewy- 
μένην, k.7.2., a8 they state the actual, but yet future, consequence of an oppor- 
tunity already given (δέδωκα, perf.). That Christ can say of himself δεδωκα 
and ποιήσω, depends upon the fact that it is he who has the key of David. — 
ἐνώπιόν cov. ‘To be distinguished from σοι only in mode of contemplation, 
but not ® in substance. The Hebraic coloring of the formula? corresponds 
well with the statement in this passage, and the style of the Apoce. in 
general.— The demonstrative αὐτήν, brought in after the relative ἣν, is 
also Hebraistic. — ὅτι. Incorrectly, Vitr.: “ Even though.” Rather is that 
which immediately precedes based upon ὅτι μικρὰν ἔχεις δύναμιν καὶ ἐτήρησας, 
κιτιὰ, The ‘little strength,” viz., of the church, cannot be explained by the 
lack of miraculous gifts,® but refers to the smallness of the church,? which 
must also be regarded in destitution when compared with the richer Jews.!° 
-As now with the μικρὰν ἔχεις δύναμιν, the καὶ ἐτῇρησας is combined, these two 
members of the sentence externally united by the mere καὶ show themselves 
to have a definite inner relation: “and (yet) hast kept,” etc. Concerning 
the subject itself, cf. ver. 10, ii. 8. The church, therefore, already had had 
opportunity, as the aor. forms ἐτήρησας and ἠρνήῆσω indicate, to confess the 


1 Cf. also Heinr. 8 N. de Lyra: ‘‘ Because I Have not given 
2 Bleek. thee, like many other bishops of this time, the 
3 Cf. C. a Lap. gift of miracles, I have recompensed thee with, 
4 Cf. also Bengel. excellent knowledge of the Scriptures.” 

5 Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 12; Col. iv. 3. 9 Grot., Wetst., Eichh., De Wette, Ebrard,. 
6 Vitr. etc. 


7399 10 Hengstenb. 11 De Wette, ete.. 


170 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Lord’s name in opposition to unbelievers, — apparently Jews and heathen. 
* Therefore, because (ὅτι) the church has done this, although of insignificant 
outward power, the Lord has given it an “open door,” the meaning of which 
is stated in ver. 9. [See Note XXXVIII., p. 183.] Thus the idea is ad- 
vaneed, that the faithful,’ steadfast confession of the church, indicated 
especially in ra ἔργα, is the cause whose effect and reward, through the Lord’s 
disposing (δέδωκα, cf. διδῶ, ποιῆσω, Ver. 9), is to be the conversion of a number 
of his enemies. Faithful confessing has itself opened the door, but of 
course only because the Lord had given believers power for testimony. Thus 
the clause ἐδού, δέδωκα, x.7.4., stands upon the idea τὰ ἔργα, and the whole 
(ver. 8) upon the designation of the Lord, ver. 7. 

Ver. 9. διδῶ, not “I will suffer,” as Wolf recommends. Hengstenb. also 
incorrectly: “I give thee, or the Christian Church, and therefore also thee.” 
The διδῶ, to which as object the partitive gen. τῶν λεγόντων belongs,! is again 
taken up in the formally (fut.) more definitely fixed ποιήσω, as then the αὐτούς 
also recurs to the just-mentioned object τῶν λεγόντων, «7.4. The words ἐκ τῆς 
συναγωγῆς τοῦ σατανᾶ designate the persons meant, with respect to their origin. 
They are not false Christians,? but ὃ Jews who just because of their enmity 
to the true Messiah (ver. 7) are not true Jews, but the synagogue of Satan. 
Yet also in that the Lord brings some from this synagogue, and causes them 
to come humbly and believingly to his church, he shows that he is the one 
who has the key of David. — ποιήσω αὐτοὺς, iva ἥξουσι, κατὰ Concerning the 
attraction αὐτούς, cf. Winer, p. 282; concerning iva, also John xi. 37, after 
ποιεῖν, with the ind. fut., cf. vi. 11, xxii. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 1; Mark iii. 2; Winer, 
p. 272. — The ποιῆσω marks the still entirely future result which the Lord 
will work ;4 the inner relation to διδῶ and δέδωκα (ver. 8) is this, that the 
δέδωκα (perf.) extends to the present, and continues in its operation, while 
the διδῶ is present in its work, and will proceed to the ποίσω. The opened 
door still stands open, and the Lord will work that a multitude of still un- 
believing Jews may enter. — Both the ἥξουσι and the προσκυνῆσουσι ἐνώπιον τῶν 
ποδῶν σου are explained in connection with the O. T. prophecies of the con- 
version of the heathen, by the fact that for unbelieving Jews, as they have 
just been described, the Church of Jesus Christ, viz., of him who has the key 
of David, ver 7, is the true Zion, in which they, no less than the heathen, 
must seek and will find the truth of God, and the fellowship of salvation. 
Thus, so far as the expressions are concerned, such prophecies as Isa. Ix. 14, 
xlix. 23, ii. 3; Ps. lxxii. 9; Zach. viii. 20 sqq., are in full harmony with 
what is here stated. The προσκυνεῖν, «.7.2., especially as an expression of 
homage,® has its complete justification in the fact that the Church of Jesus 
Christ stands there as beloved of the Lord (x. γνῶσιν, ὅτι ἠγάπησά oe), and as 
the mediator of the divine salvation. Yet the Catholic interpretation with- 
out any ground has: “The highest devotion of believers, and reverence and 
submission to the Church and its prelates, are signified. For this adoration 
proceeds from the apprehension of an excellence of prelates thut 1s more than 


1 Cf. ii. 17. Winer, p. 490. 4 Viz., ἥξουσ., «.7.A. 
2 Vitr. 8 Cf. ii. 9. 5 Cf. Gen. xxiii. 7, etc. Ew., ¢brard, etc. 


CHAP. III. 10. 171 
human, and less than divine.” 1 — καὶ γνῶσιν, ὅτι ἤγαπησά σε. On the one hand, 
the aorist form ἠγάπησα,2 and on the other the connection and allusion to ver. 
7, furnish the reference to the definite proof of the Lord’s love, in that he 
has died for his Church. Just this must the unbelieving Jews acknowledge 
who now still reject and blaspheme the Lord as a crucified evil-doer.? In- 
correct reference of the ἤγαπ. in N. de Lyra: “ By advancing thee not only to 
the catholic faith, but also to the episcopal dignity; ” in Ew., to ver. 10, or4 
to Isa. lxiii. 4, lxix. 27. De Wette too, indefinitely: “ That I have acknowl- 
edged thee as a faithful church, and furnished thee with my gifts and 
power.” 

Ver. 10. ὅτι ἐτῆρησας --- κἀγώ ce τηρήσω. The form of the antanaclasis5 
corresponds with the inner relation between the performance of the church, 
and the reward on the Lord’s part; but even the performance of the church 
depends entirely upon the Lord’s grace, as the λόγος τ. ὑπομ. itself, which the 
church has kept, is full of divine power, nourishes and supports the faith, 
fidelity, patience, and hope of the church, and thus qualifies the same for 
victory. — τὸν λόγον τῆς ὑπομονῆς μου. The gen. ὑπομονῆς designates the λόγος 
according to its peculiar nature, as it depends upon its contents;® the pro- 
noun pov belongs not only to τῆς drou.,’ but 8 to the whole conception τ. Aoy. 
τ. txou.2 The form of statement in i. 9 is therefore, at all events, a differ- 
ent one.!° Consequently τ. avy. τ. ὑπομ. μου cannot be: “ the word concerning 
Christ’s patience, concerning the sufferings of Christ patiently endured for 
us,” or “the word of constancy in Christ’s faith;” 2! or “the word which 
makes its demands partly according to its contents and spirit,}* and partly by 
virtue of the duty of confession and steadfastness in following, as it belongs 
to me and mine;”}8 also not: “my patience, ie., the specifically Christian, 
expressly required by the Lord himself, and enjoined as a preservative 
against the judgments threatened against the world.” 34 The vacillation and 
juncture of different ideas by all interpreters who wish to refer the ov only 
to τ. trou, reveals the unnaturalness of the combination. The λόγος τῆς 
ὑπομονῆς Of the Lord dare not, however, be explained: “the word which 
among other commandments contains that of patience also,” an explanation 
which is incorrectly ascribed to Grot., who, as many others vacillating con- 
cerning the relation of the μου, says at one time: “ My precept concerning 
patience,” and then, again, that the patience of Christ signifies “that which 


1‘C. a Lap. 

2 Cf. John xiii. 1; Eph. v. 25; Gal. ii. 20; 
also John iii. 16; 1 John iv. 10, 11. 

8 Cf. 11.9; Acts xili. 45. 

4 Ew. ii. 

5 Beng., etc. 

6 Cf. Winer, p. 222. 

7 Calov., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 

ΒΥ Col..1313> Heb. 1.3. 

9 Winer, p. 222. Obscure: Grot., Vitr., 
Eichh., Heinr., Ebrard. 

10 Against Hengstenb., etc. 

11 Calov. 

12 As the word of the cross (1 Cor. i. 18). 


13 Vitr., who also paraphrases: ‘* They pre- 
served the word of the Lord’s patience ; i.e., 
the word of the Lord, which is a word of 
patience, because no one can with constancy 
profess the doctrine of the gospel, unless, at 
the same time, he fortify himself to bear with 
patience the afflictions accompanying the pro- 
fession of Christianity.’’ All Christians must 
bear the cross of Christ (Matt. xvi. 24), i.e., 
θλῖψις; but θλῖψις works ὑπομονήν (Rom. v. 
8), 80 that the Aoy. τῆς ὑπομον. is nothing else 
than the Aoy. τοῦ σταυροῦ (1 Cor. i. 18). 

14 Luke xxi. 19, viii. 15; Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13. 
Hengstenb. 


ι 
4 


172 ΓΗΕ REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Christ has enjoined.” The whole word of God as a word of patience rather 
appears to be the view of the Revelation in general, and of our epistle in 
particular, because with respect to troubles unavoidable to believers it gives 
and demands steadfast, faithful, and hopeful patience, i.e., the virtue which 
alone can lead us from all troubles to glory.1_ With respect to the already 
present and still future troubles, every thing to the believer turns upon the 
fact that he “overcomes.” This he can attain only through the ὑπομονῇ, to 
which the word of his Lord points him. Thus the writer of the Apoc. can 
from his point of vision regard the whole word of Christ as a λόγον τῆς ὑπομονῆς 
with the same right as, e.g., Paul, the preacher of righteousness, alone by 
faith in the Crucified, represents the whole gospel as the λόγος τοῦ oravpod.2 — 
In the words κἀγώ σε τηρῆσω ἐκ τῆς ὥρας, x.7.4., the church at Philadelphia is not 
promised that it shall be preserved from the hour of trial, i.e., that it shall 
not meet with sufferings full of trial,? but in accordance with the presenta- 
tion of the Apoc., that the troubles before the coming of the Lord will befall 
all believers, who of course are sealed,* lest by the temptation in the troubles 
they may fall;® and in accordance with the corresponding expression rp. éx,® 
in distinction from typ. ἀπό, the church at Philadelphia, since it has already 
maintained victorious patience, is also to be delivered by his confirming grace 
from the universal distress impending before the coming of the Lord.8— 
The ὥρα τοῦ πειρασμοῦ, x.7.A., 1-e., the precise period wherein the temptation is 
to occur,® refers to no persecution whatever proceeding from the Roman 
emperors, —neither that of Nero,!° nor some one after Domitian," possibly 
under Trajan,/?— also not, as Primas and Beda? arbitrarily agree, to suffer- 
ings occasioned by antichrist; but the idea, here not more minutely defined, 
is to be referred, according to the further development of the Apoc., to all 
the afflictions which, before the personal coming of the Lord,14 are to burst 
upon believers ;15 the punishments impending by God’s wrath only over 
unbelievers before the appearing of the Lord are not meant.!®— The idea of 
the πειρασμός and πειράσαι 11 has its justification because, on the one hand, to 
believers the danger of a fall into such suffering is present,1®—and hence there 
go with it the promise σὲ τηρήσω, the command κράτει, x.7.4., ver. 11, and the 
pledge to the victor, ver. 12, — but, on the other hand, to unbelievers such 
suffering must actually be a temptation,’ and that, too, of such kind as that 
because of their impenitent unbelief they will ever fall by it the deeper, and 


1 ΟἿ, 1. 9; Matt.: xxiv: 13. 7 Jas. i. 21; Prov. vii. 86. Cf. 2 Thess. iii. 3. 
25h ΌΤΙ: ἘΠ ΕΠ... 11: ἴς 8 Cf. Vitr., Hengstenb., Ew. ii., Volkm. 
3 Whereby either the church at Philadel- 9 Cf. xiv. 7, 15. 

phia alone, as constituting a special exception 10 Grot. 

(Beng., Eichh., Ebrard), or certain afflictions 11 N. de Lyra. 

(chs. Vi., viii.), in whose presence ad believers’ 12 Alcas., Pareus, etc. 

are to remain approved (vii. 3sqq.; De Wette; 13 Cf. Andr., Areth. 

cf. Ewald, Ziill.), are regarded. 14 Cf. immediately afterwards ver. 11: épxo- 
4 The case is different in ix.3, where they μαι ταχύ. 

who are sealed are not touched by a plague 15 Cf. ch. vi. 

immediately coming from the abyss. 16 Cf. ch. xvi. 
5 Cf. vii. 3, 14; Matt. xxiv. 22, 24. 17 Cf. ii. 10. 


6 John xvii. 15. Cf. Apoc. vii. 14: ἐρχ. ἐκ 18 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 22, 24. 
τ. θλίψ. 19 Cf. Deut. iv. 34, vii. 19, xxix. 3. 


CHAP. III. 11, 12. 173 


their hostility to what is holy be always the more revealed by despair and 
blasphemy.! — ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης. The remark that hereby the Roman 
empire is designated 2 is correct only so far as in John’s historical horizon 
the whole world appears comprehended in the Roman empire. Yet by this 
(erroneous) limitation, the prophetic truth remains untouched, that the hour 
of temptation is to come to the actual οἰκουμένη ὅλη, as certainly as the Lord 
himself is to appear as absolutely Judge of all. — πειράσαι τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ 
τῆς γῆς. Those dwelling on the earth are, according to the constant mode of 
expression in the Apoc.,? the mass of men, in contradistinction to believers 
redeemed from all nations and tongues.* The πειράσαι refers to them in so 
far only as they are not kept (σὲ τηρήσω). 

Ver. 11. ἔρχομαι ταχύ. The message resounding throughout the entire Rev- 
elation,> which proclaims judgment against enemies and the impenitent,® 
serves faithful believers’ as a consolation and encouragement, and here is 
made especially prominent by the more explicit admonition to receive the 
crown? from the hand of the coming Lord: κράτει 6 ἔχεις, κι.Δ. What the 
church has, must be that because of which it is to receive the crown, if it 
hold the same fast.1° Thus, e.g., the church at Ephesus “has ” this, that it 
hates the works of the Nicolaitans.11 What the church at Phila. has, is to 
be discerned from vv. 8-10; viz., this, that in trouble they had patiently kept 
the word of the Lord, and had not denied his name. Holding fast is by .- 
perseverance unto the end;!? but the victor’s crown of eternal life —the 
hope laid up 18 — would be taken away," if the church would not hold fast 
to what it had, but in the impending temptation would waver and apostatize. 
Hence the Lord who pledges his gracious preservation (ver. 10) admonishes 
to faithful holding fast. Inconsistent with the context is the definition of 
the ὃ ἔχεις by N. de Lyra as “grace given thee;”’ and by Ew.,!> “the orna- 
ment of thy virtues.” Better, C. a Lap.:1° “faith and patience.” — From 
the general mode of expression iva μηδεὶς λάβῃ, the idea must not be pressed 
that another could retain for himself the crown snatched from the church.?? 
This possibly would have been expressed by dAdoc.18 But the idea itself is 
impossible.}9 

Ver. 12. As in all the epistles, so here, the concluding promise to the 
“victor” (cf. ver. 11) proceeds to the time of eternal glory after the coming 
of the Lord. This is, besides, especially indicated here by the expression 
τ. kav, Ἵερους., κιτΔ. The incorrect reference to “‘ the Church militant,” 35 or 
“the Church militant and triumphant,” #1 causes the most perverted inter- 


1 jx. 20. Cf. xvi. 11, 21; Hengstenb. 12 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 18. 
2 Cf. Luke ii. 1; Grot., Vitr., Stern, ete. 13 2 Tim. i. 12, iv. 8. 
3 vi. 10, xi. 10, xiii. 8, 14, etc. Cf. Acts iv. 14 λάβῃ. Cf. vi. 4; De Wette. 
26. 15 Cf. Vitr., Wolf, etc. 
4 Cf. v. 9. 16 Cf. Grot., etc. 
5 xxii. 1.15. 20. ΟἿ. Δ... 8. 1τ Grot., Ziill. 
6 Cf., e.g., ii. 5, 16. 18 De Wette. 
7 Cf ii. 25, ; 19 Cf. already Calov. “ 
8 De Wette. 20 N. de _ Lyra, Areth., Grot., Wetst., 
® Cf. ii. 10. Schottg., etc. 


10 Cf. ii. 1, 25. 11 jj. 6. 21 Vitr., C. a Lap., Stern, etc: 


174 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


pretations of individual points. Thus N. de Lyra interprets, by understand- 
ing ἐν τ. ναῷ τ. 0. μ. and τ. πόλεως τ. θ. μ. Of the Church militant, and the ποιῆσω 
αὐτ. στύλον, recalling Gal. ii. 9: “Brave and powerful in faith, not only 
for himself, but also for comforting and sustaining others;” and remarks 
on ἔξω οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃ ἔτι, “by apostasy, not by excommunication ; on yp, ἐπ’ 
abt. τ. ὄν τ. 0. μιν “for they [viz., bishops] represent in the Church the per- 
son of God;” on καταβ. ἐκ τ. οὐρ. : “For the Church militant is ruled and 
directed by the Holy Spirit;” and on τ. ὄν, μ. τὸ καινόν : “ As the Lord him- 
self at the circumcision was called Jesus, and afterwards Christ, so believers 
are first called disciples of Jesus, and then! Christians.? Similar distortions 
occur in Grot.,? Wetst.,4 etc. The correct reference to the future glory ὅ is 
not in any way, as with Beng., to be so limited that the first promise ποιῆσω 
αὐτ. στύλον ἐν τ. vad τ. 6. μ. is fulfilled_already at the time of vii. 15, and before 
that of ch. xix., on the ground that there will be no temple in the new 
Jerusalem.® For if it be said that in the new Jerusalem there will be no 
special place for the worship and revelation of God, as God himself will be 
immediately near all the blessed, this does not prevent, that, according to 
an idea of an entirely different kind, but of essentially the same meaning, 
the entire community of perfected believers is contemplated as the temple 
of God, in which individuals may appear as pillars. This is only a transfer 
of the figure of the temporal to that of the heavenly communion of saints ;7 
while the figure contains a significant feature, founded neither upon Isa. 
xxii. 23,8 nor 1 Kings vii. 15 sqq.,° in that 19 by being compared not to foun- 
dation-stones, but to the pillars of the temple," they are represented in their 
immutable firmness (x. ἔξω, «.7.4.) and glorious adornment. Incorrectly, 
Eichh. :12 “The friends of the King, having more intimate access to him, 
who are admitted to his counsels, may be called columns.” — καὶ ἔξω οὐ μὴ 
ἐξέλθῃ ἔτι. The subject is not ὁ στύλος,18 but ὁ νικῶν.13 Therefore the remark 
on ἐξέλθῃ is in no wise necessary, that the verb as intransitive expresses the 15 
sense of a passive.!® He who once, in the sense above indicated, is made a 
victor in the temple of God, henceforth shall no more go forth, either volun- 
tarily (viz., by a fall), or under constraint. — καὶ γράψω ἐπ’ αυτὸν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ 
μου. Cf. in general Tr. Bara bathra, p. 75, 2:17 “R. Samuel . . . says that R. 
Jochanan said that three are called by the name of God; e.g., the righteous,}® 


1 Acts xi. : 6 xxi. 22. 
2 The Jesuit C. a Lap. (cf. the brethren of 7 Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 16 sqq.; Eph. ii. 19 sqq.; 1 
his order, Rib. Vieg.) thinks that, according to Pet. ii. 5 sqq. 
**the new name”’ which the Lord received at 8 Hichh., Ew. 
his circumcision, the victors will be .called 9 Grot., Vitr., Ziill. 
* Jesuani”’ or *‘ Jesuits.”’ 10 Cf. De Wette, etc. 
3 ov μὴ ἐξέλθῃ: ‘* Will not be compelled 11 Gal. ii. 9. 
again to flee as under Nero.”’ τ. ov. τ. πολ. Te 12 Cf. ver. 8. 
θεμ.: ** This name is the Catholic Church, viz., 18 Hich., Ebr. 
as it was free and flourishing under the Chris- 14 Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Klief. 
tian emperors.”’ = 15 Vitr., Eichh., Ew. 
4 στυλ., in opposition to the earthquakes 16 Possibly ἐκβάλλεσθαι. Cf. Mark iv. 21; 
which were frequent at Philadelphia. Cf. Gen. xliii. 18; Matt. viii. 12, ix. 33. Syr. 
ver. 1. 17 In Wetst. 
5 Calov., Beng., Eichh., Heinr., Ew., De 18 Tsa. xliii. 7. 


Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Klief. 


CHAP. III. 14-22. 118 


the Messiah,! and Jerusalem.? — ἐπ’ αὐτόν, viz., upon the victor,® not upon the 
pillar. Areth. says more accurately: én? τὸν νοητὸν στύλον [on the mental 
pillar]; yet here the αὐτόν is entirely identical with the preceding object 
(ποιῆσω) αὑτόν. If the question be asked as to where the inscription is to be 
regarded as written, the answer is to be given otherwise than ii. 17, and 
according to xiv. 1, xxii. 4 (cf. xvii. 5, vii. 3): ‘‘upon the forehead.” 
Since the ναός is mentioned, the thought is closely connected therewith of 
the inscription upon the high priest’s 5 diadem, M79 wap;° and that, too, 
the more as by τὸ ὄνομα τ. 6. μ. the holy name ΤΊΣ Τ is meant.’ At all 
events,® the holy and blessed state of belonging to God is expressed. -- So, 
too, the name of the city of God — which is arbitrarily traced to a breast- 
shield of the wearer, instead of the names of the twelve tribes 19 ---- designates 
the right of citizenship in the new Jerusalem.!!_ The name “city” need not, 
however, be derived from Ezek. xlviii. 35,!2— although the description (xxi. 
3 544.} is applicable as an exposition of that significant designation, — but 
John himself calls the city of God ἡ καινὴ Ἱερουσαλήμ. ---- ἡ καταβαίνουσα, x.T.A. 
The construction as i. 5. The meaning of the expression is elucidated by 
ch. xxi. Falsely rationalizing, not only Grot.: “It has been procured 
by the wonderful kindness of God,” but even Calov.:}% “It has God as its 
author.” — x. τ᾿ ὄνομά μου τὸ καινὸν. Not the name mentioned in xix. 16,14 but 
that meant in xix. 12.15 But he who bears the new name of the Lord is 
thereby designated as eternally belonging to the Lord as though with the 
Lord’s own signature. If, however, the name of the Lord in this sense and 
significance can be placed alongside of that of God and the new Jerusalem, 
the Lord must verily be the one that in ver. 7 he professes to be; in that 
also he says of himself ποιῆσω, γράψω, he proclaims himself as one who is to 
be recognized as the eternal King of the kingdom of heaven. 

Vv. 14-22. The epistle to the church at Laodicea. — Laod. in Phrygia, 
so called after Laodice, the wife of King Antiochus II. (formerly Diospolis, 
then Rhoas), reckoned by Tacitus 15 among the “ renowned cities of Asia,” a 
rich manufacturing and commercial city,” lay east of Ephesus, south-east of 
Philadelphia, in the neighborhood of Colosse,!8 on the river Lycus, — and 
hence called, in distinction from other places of the same name, A. 7 ἐπὶ Λύκῳ, 
—or, more accurately, on the river Caprus, which, flowing into the Lycus, is 
received by the Meander. The ruins of ancient L. are found at the present 
unimportant town of Eski-Hissar.19 Already at the time of the Apostle 
Paul,” a Christian church existed at L. A bishop and martyr at L., Sagaris, 


1 Jer. xxiii. 6. 12 Vitr., Ewald, etc. 
2 Ezek. xlviii. 35. 13 Cf. Luke xx. 4; Jas. iii. 15. 
8 Vitr., Calov., Schéttg., Eichh., Heinr., 14 Grot., Calov., Vitr., Hengstenb. 
Ewald, Ziill., Hengstenb., Ebrard. 15 Kichh., De Wette, Stern, Ebrard, etc. 
4 Grot., De Wette. . 16 Ann., xiv. 27. 
5 Cf. i. 6. 17 Hence Tacitus reports: ‘‘ In the same year 
6 Schéttg., Eichh., Ewald. (62) Laodicea, being overthrown by an earth- 
7 Cress. 8. quake, wi.hout any aid from us, but by its own 
8 Grot., Vitr., ete. strength, recovered.” Cf. on vv. 1-6. 
9 Calov., Hengstenb., Ebrard. 18 Cf. Col. ii. 1, iv. 13 sq. 
10 Scnéttg. 19 Cf, Winer, wb. 


11 Cf. xxi. 3 sqq. 20 Cf. Col. in various places. 


176 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


in the year 170 A.D., is mentioned by Eusebius, H. E., iv. 26, v. 24; but 
even Archippus! is already named as bishop.? Each of these has been 
regarded the “angel” of the church; and Hengstenb. immediately after- 
wards in the expression 7 ἀρχὴ τ. κτ.», ver. 14, discovers an allusion to the 
name of Arch-ippus as the most influential elder at Laodicea.? — According 


to Col. ii., Paul had the same care for the church at Laod. as for that at 


Colosse,* since these neighboring churches were exposed in like manner to - 


certain Judaizing, and at the same time theosophizing (gnosticizing), erro- 
neous doctrines. Of these there is no immediate trace in the Apoc. epistles.® 
But, on the contrary, the lukewarmness and proud self-sufficiency and self- 
righteousness of the church are rejected. Perhaps the state of affairs is to 
be regarded in such a way, that, while the peculiar gnosticizing aberration 
was averted from the church by the “conflict” of the Apostle Paul, yet that 
this, scarcely without the influence of its own riches, and of the entire tone 
of worldly culture and worldly enjoyment prevailing in a wealthy commer- 
cial city, had occurred in a worldly way, in which, on the one hand, the 
candid confession of the Lord, always opposing worldliniess in warm words 
and zealous conduct, was missed, while, on the other hand, the trust. in a 
certain external inoffensiveness manifested itself as an arrogant self-right- 
eousness, which even before ® was in another way to be dreaded. 

Ver. 14. ὁ ᾿Αμήν. This Hebraistic expression’? is, as to its meaning, 
entirely synonymous with the following Greek expressions: ὁ μάρτυς, ὁ πιστὸς 
καὶ ἀληθινὸς ; 8 but the double designation of the Lord establishes with earnest 
emphasis the indubitable certainty of all that the Lord, who is the abso- 
lutely faithful witness (i. 5), has now to say to this church of his at Laod.; 
viz , the accusations (ver. 15 sqq.), the advice (ver. 18), the threatening 
and promise.? Not inappropriate, therefore, is the admonition that in and 
through Christ all God’s promises are, and are to be, fulfilled; 19 from which 
the inference has been derived, that the epistle to the church at Laod. is to 
be regarded the Amen of all the seven epistles, or that in the designations 
of the Lord, ver. 14, a warrant is to be sought for the fulfilment of what is 
said in chs iv. sqq.2 The question here is not with respect to the promises 
or other utterances of God,!8 which have their fulfilment in Christ, but with 
respect to the discourses of Christ himself which have in him +4 their guaranty. 
Hence it is not correct when N. de Lyra adds to ὁ μαρτ., «.7.4., “of paternal 
majesty.” As a “witness,” the Lord here manifests himself, however, as 
entirely determined by all his testimonies in the following epistle. — ἀληθινός. 
Not synonymous with πιστός (= ἀληθῆς : so ordinarily), but just because the 
Lord is a faithful, and, because of his truth, an unconditionally trustworthy 


1 Col. iv. 17. 6 Cf. Col. ii. 18. 

2 Const. Apost., viii. 46. 7 Cf., as to the form, 2 Cor. i. 20. 

3 Concerning the Easter controversy at Lao- 8 Cf. Bengel, Ewald, Hengstenb. 
dicea, in the time of Sagaris, cf. G. E. Steitz: 9 Vitr., Hengstenb., etc. 
“ Die Diff. der Oec. u. d. Kleinasiaten in der 10 Grot., De Wette, etc. 
Paschafeier,” Stud. u. Kritik., 1856, pp. 769, 11 Ziill. 
778 sqq. 12 De Wette, Stern. 

4 Cf. also Col. iv. 16. ὃ 13 2 Cor. i. 206. Cf. also Isa. Ixv. 16. 


5 On the contrary, Vitr., Ρ. 161. 14 Cf. John xiv. 6; N. de Lyra, etc. 


CHAP. III. 15, 16. 177 
witness, is he a true, actual, and genuine witness who deserves this name.!— 
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. Col. i. 15 sqq.,on which Meyer has refuted the 
erroneous expositions which essentially recur in reference to this passage. 
According to the wording, ἡ ἀρχὴ τ. xr. τ. θ. cannot signify ὁ ἄρχων, the prince 
of God's creation;? also the κτίσις τ. 9., “the creature restored, creates new 
things,”’ the church ; 8 and still less can the expression signify what in i. 5 
follows of course the ὁ yapr. ὁ mor., although there it is said in clear words: 
ὁ πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρὼν * ‘The wording in itself allows only two conceptions: 
either Christ. is designated “the beginning of the creation of God,” i.e., as 
the first creature ὃ of God,® as Ew. and Ziill. understand it in harmony with 
the Arians;7 or, the Lord is regarded as the active principle of the creation.® 
Unconditionally decisive for the latter alternative, which, however, dare not 
be perverted by a reference to the spiritual new creation,® is the fundamental 
view of Christ, which is expressed in the Apoc., as well as in every other 
book of the N. T. How could Christ have caused even the present epistle 
to be written, if he himself were a creature? How could every creature in 
heaven and earth'worship him,!° if he himself were one of them?! The 
designatior of the Lord, that he is A and Q, need only be recalled in its neces- 
sary force, and it will be found that in the A lies the fact that Christ is the 
ἀρχῇ of the creation,}? while in the Q lies the fact of Christ’s coming to make 
an end of the visible creation. [See Note XXXIX., p. 184.] 

Vv. 15, 16. Oida σου τὰ ἔργα, ὅτι, x.7.A. Cf. vv. 1,8. The works, i.e., the 
entire life as it comes into manifestation, show that the church is “neither 
cold nor hot,” but “lukewarm.” The rabbinical expression 0°)'13, “the 
intermediates,”!% has only a very indefinite resemblance to this passage. 
Every explanation referring to the general sphere of psychology and ethics 
is unsatisfactory, as the question here is with regard to the relations of the 
church to its Lord. It is plain that the ζεστός 15 is an actual believer, who 
with ardent love cleaves only to his Lord, and therefore asks for none else.16 
Such “heat” Paul, e.g., records in Phil. iii. 8 sqq. In contrast with such a 
ζεστός, the ψυχρός can only be one who is “beyond all influence of the Divine 
Spirit, as unbelievers, the heathen;”1!7 but such contrast is inapplicable here, 
where such persons are addressed, to whom divine things and the workings 
of the Holy Ghost are actually not entirely foreign. This, Hengstenb. has 
correctly felt, but incorrectly applied, when he first explains the “coldness” © 


1 Cf. ver. 7. 

2 Eichh. Cf. also Calov., Beng. 

3 &, consequently reads τ. ἐκκλησίας. But 
it is amended. Grot., Wetst., Eichh., Heinr. 
Cf. C. a Lap. 

4 Cf., besides, Eichh. 

5 Cf., on ἀρχή, Gen. xlix. 3; Deut. xxi. 17. 

6 Cf. Prov. viii. 22. 

7 Castalis says: “chef d’@uvre, —the most 
excellent and first of all God’s works.” 

8 Andr., Areth., N. de Lyra, Vatabl., Calov., 
Vitr., Wolf, Stern, Hengstenb., Ebrard. Cf. 
also De Wette, Ew. ii. 


9 Klief. 10 y. 13. 


11 Cf. xix. 10. 

12 Cf. Col. i. 15, 16; Johni. 3. 

13 ἐς There are three classes of men: for there 
are either the perfectly righteous, or the per- 
fectly godless, or the intermediary.” Sohar. 
Gen., p. 83; in Schottg. 

14 Cf. Hengstenb. So Eichh., Heinr.: ‘ Of 
uncertain disposition, and altogether of doubt- 
ful mind; ‘* without character.” C.a Lap.. 
‘* Who vacillate between virtues and vices.” 
Cf. N. de Lyra, Calov., etc. 

15 Rom. xii. 11. 

16 Cf. Aret., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

17 De Yette. Cf. Grot., Beng., Ebrard. 


178 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


very indefinitely as “selfishness,” but then—with reference to the wish 
ὄφελον, x.7.4, —understands such coldness “as is combined with the painful 
consciousness that one is cold, and with the heartfelt desire to become 
warm.” This is entirely against the context. Rather the “coldness” in 
direct and absolute opposition to “hot,” unconditional love to the Lord, is 
_ to be regarded as hostility and opposition. Thus Saul was “cold” as long 
as he persecuted the Lord. But since as from Saul a Paul, and from one 
that is cold, one that is hot can be made more readily than from one that is 
lukewarm,}! the wish ὄφελον, «.7.4., 18 therefore justified.2—— Concerning ὄφελον 
as a particle, and combined with the imp., cf. 2 Cor. xi. 1.3— οὕτως. Ci. Rom. 
i. 15. It is noted that the relation is not in fact of such a kind as has just 
been wished, but rather as is stated by the accusation, which also here in 
explanation of the οὕτως is expressly repeated, so that the reason for the 
threatening is completely established : μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι, x.7.A. — χλιαρός. The defi- 
nite, positive expression for the οὔτε ψυχρὸς οὔτε ζεστός designates the indecision 
and incompleteness of the relation to the Lord, where he is neither entirely 
rejected nor entirely received,—a position which cannot exist* without 
inner sordidness, indolence, and self-deception.® See, in general, Matt. vi. 
24, xii. 830; 1 John ii. 15; Jas. iv. 4. — The threatened ἐμέσαι ἐκ τ. στομ. μ. 
is stated in accordance with the idea of the χλιαρός, because lukewarmness 
provokes nausea. By the μέλλω, the Lord refers to his judgment which is 
already approaching; he is already just about coming, and then rejecting 
this church opposing him, for it may be that it will yet first obey his call to 
repentance (ver. 20). While ii. 5, xvi. 23, 111. 3, declare the indubitable 
judgment in the future with respect to the case, there expressly designated, 
of not being converted, the μέλλω © here leaves the possibility open that the 
judgment may be averted, although the condition for it is expressly stated 
first in ver., 20.7 

Vv. 17,18. Ὅτι λέγεις gives the foundation for the συμβουλεύω following 
in the second part of the sentence, ver. 18.8 Hengstenb. incorrectly finds 
the reproach of lukewarmness grounded in ver. 17; this has occurred already 
in ver. 15.9 The construction is like that of xviii. 7, 8. —6m recitative. — 
The decision as to whether wealth in earthly money and prop- 
erty,)° or the fancied 11 wealth in spiritual blessings,!* be meant, — in no event 
both at the same time,!8 — depends not upon the (doubtful) prefiguration of 
Hos. xii. 9,14 nor upon the fact that the speech put into the mouth of the 
church must refer to possessions of the same kind, as the reply of the Lord 
(καὶ οὐκ oidac, x.7.A.) manifestly referring to spiritual treasures, but upon the 


πλούσιος ---- ἔχω. 


1 The opinion derived from physics, that 
what is lukewarm becomes watm more rapidly 
than what is cold, should never have been 
expressed if considerations of what is reason- 
able were taken into the account. 

2 Grot., Beng., De Wette, etc. 

3 See Meyer on the passage. Winer, p. 283. 

4 Cf. De Wette. 

5 Cf. ver. 17. 

7 Cf. Beng., etc. 

8 Beng., De Wette, Ebrard. 


Cf. ver 2. 


9 Cf, the connection of ver. 16 with οὕτως. 

10 Andr., Areth., Aretius, C.a Lap., Beng., 
Ewald, Ziill., etc. 

11 λέγεις. Cf. ver. 9. 

12 Beda, N. de Lyra, Rib., Alcas., Grot., 
Calov., Vitr., Eichh., De Wette, Hengstenb., 
Ebrard, Ew. ii., etc. 

13 Stern. 

14 Cf. Zech. xi. 5. 

15 For a striking antithesis between carthly 
and heavenly riches is suggested (ii. 9). 


CHAP. III. 17, 18. 179 


fact that the self-witness of the church (ὅτι πλούσιος εἰμΐ, x.7.2.) must harmonize 
inwardly with the reproach of lukewarmness (vv. 15, 16), and with the 
entire discourse of the Lord that follows. But this would not be the case, 
had the church fallen into the grossest mammon-worship, and entirely for- 
gotten any higher need beyond that of their earthly riches. A church, on 
the contrary, which trusts in its spiritual riches, and still has the conscious- 
ness of having obtained these riches, will not be entirely without them,! but 
is, of course, implicated in an arrogant self-deception concerning its spiritual 
wealth. The church is in reality not rich;? for, if it were, it would not say 
so, as in ver. 17. [See Note XL., p. 184.] The three expressions πλούσιος 
εἰμί ---- πεπλούτηκα ---- οὐδὲν χρείαν ἔχω, designate a gradation : ὃ the riches have so 
increased, that now at last there is no longer any need, but satiety has 
entered.* — καὶ οὐκ οἶδας. Therefore a self-deception of the church, for the 
Lord’s knowledge ὃ is decisive. — ὅτι od ei. The σὺ has an emphatic position: 
just thou, thou who regardest thyself so rich. —6 ὁ ταλαίπωρος. This adjective 
occurs in the N. T., besides here, only in Rom. vii. 24. Because of his ταλαι- 
mupia,® one is ἐλεεινός, 1.6.,) ἐλέους ἄξιος (worthy of pity).7 The article before 
tad, notes with similar emphasis as the σύ before εἰ, that just the one thinking 
himself rich and elevated above all’ want is he to whom the ταλαιπ. applies. 
First of all, the ταλαιπ. and ἐλεειν. stand in sharp opposition to the final words 
of boasting, oid, χρείαν ἔχω; then the καὶ πτωχός to the πλουσ. εἰμὲ x. πεπλούτ. ; 
while the ideas of the τυφλός and γυμνός are combined with that of the πτωχός, 
since spiritual poverty essentially identical with spiritual misery may be 
considered spiritual blindness and nakedness. Thus what the Lord judges 
concerning the true character of the church appears most definitely ex- 
pressed in the three items πτωχός, τυφλός, and γυμνός ; hence the advice which 
now follows (ver. 18) revolves about the same, as the χρυσίον ---- πλουτήσῃς ap- 
plies to the πτωχός, the ἱμάτια ---- γυμνότητος cov to the γυμνός, and the κολλούριον ---- 
iva βλέπῃς to the τυφλός. ---- συμβουλεύω. Not without a certain irony,’ provoked 
by the arrogant imagination of the one so miserable and poor. Beng. finds 
in the expression an indication of estrangement, since it is only to strangers 
that advice, while to those who are one’s own, a command, is given ; — inap- 
plicable. — ἀγοράσαι. The Roman-Catholic idea of a meritum de congruo can 
be derived from the ἀγοράσαι only when by pressing the expression, and in 
opposition to the context (ver. 17, πτωχός), an equivalent purchase price is in 
some way stated ; and this is defined as “ good works,” ® or as “ prayer, tears, 
repentance, good works.” 1° But if the spiritual good to be obtained from 
the Lord be once regarded as χρυσίον, the result is, — especially according to 
the type of Isa. lv. 1,— that the corresponding concrete idea of the ἀγοράσαι 
is as readily designated as the purity of the χρυσίον by the metaphorical state- 
ment πεπυρωμένον ἐκ πυρός; and it is just as incorrect in the latter expression 


1 As “ not being cold,” it will not reject the 5 Cf. ver. 15. 

Lord, the source of riches. 6 Rom. iii. 16; Jas. vy. 1. 
2 As it is not “" hot,’’ and therefore does not 7 Suid. 

have full fellowship with the Lord. 8 Cf. Ebrard. 
8 Cf. N. de Lyra, Grot., Beng., De Wette. 9 N. de Lyra. 


4 Cf. 1 Cor. iv. 8. 10 C. a Lap., etc. 


180 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
thy. 

to think of a confirmation of faith in trouble,} ete.,? as to treat the ἀγοράσαι 
in an unevangelical sense. In accord with the sense, Beng. explains: “It 
costs no more than the surrender of the idea of one’s own wealth.” ?— παρ᾽ 
ἐμοῦ! As the only Saviour. Cf. especially i. 5; in regard to the white gar- 
ments which are to be purchased of the Lord, οἵ. vil. 14. ---- χρυσίον. Spiritual 
good as that which actually makes rich (iva πλουτησῇς), in contradistinction 
to the poverty of the church. To interpret the χρυσίον as “love,”* or as 
“faith,” ὅ is too special. — πεπυρωμένον éx πυρός. πυρύω = 3, Zech. xiii. 9. 
The ἐκ represents the zip as the cause whence the πυροῦσθαι proceeds ; ὃ accord- 
ing to the sense, it is therefore correctly rendered “ purified by fire.”7 The 
entire expression designates not “wisdom inflamed with love,” 8 or “ tested 
faith ;’’® as, on the contrary, the exposition must be made, that it is only 
through faith that the χρυσ. πεπυρ. ἐκ πυρ. is won: but'as the purified gold is 
completely pure and truly precious, so is the spiritual good to be. obtained of 
the Lord unconditionally holy and true, and eternally enriching. —xai ἱματία 
λευκά, «.7.4. Cf. ver. 4, vii. 14, xix. 8. Only in the figurative mode of pres- 
entation, and not in the proper sense, are the “white garments” to be dis- 
tinguished from the “ gold,” just as nakedness is in reality nothing but 
poverty. The remark of Ebrard is arbitrary, that “the command is to be 
executed in the reverse order from that in which it is given. The ultimate 
end, to become rich, viz., in good fruits that have some value before God, is 
first named; for this, gold must be bought. But before gold can be consid- 
ered, garments must first be purchased in order to cover the nakedness; and 
as the covering of the nakedness cannot be accomplished before the eyes are 
open, eyesalve must first of all be applied.’”? But the “gold’’ is mentioned 

first only because, with respect to fancied riches and actual poverty (ver. 17), 
this is the nearest thought; but the succession of the particular items neither 
in ver. 17 nor ver. 18 is to be urged, since the τυφλός and γυμνός are con- 
nected with the πτωχός, in ver. 17, in a different order from the correspond- 
ing members in ver. 18. Only the chief idea πτωχός, and the corresponding 
clause in ver. 18, naturally precede. — καὶ μὴ φανερωθῇ. N. de Lyra: “ Before 
God and the holy angels.” Beng.: ‘* Before God.” But no such restriction 
is needed. — κολλούριον. In classical writers, κολλύριον. The word designates 
a substance brought to the long round form of a κολλύρα, roll (e.g., bread- 
cake), which being mixed with various drugs was used for anointing the 
eyes.t° The Jewish designation pnp (120) agrees with the form κολλού- 
ρίον. Here is meant, not the word of God itself, but the gift of the Holy 
Ghost which enlightens,!? offered indeed by means of the word, and that, 
too,!8 already by the present word with its reproof 15 and grace.!® Cf. 1 John 


1 As the idea is, in fact, applied, e.g., in 1 10 Wetst. 

Petite 11 Stern. Cf. Ps. 9. xix. Hence, in 77. 
2 Aret., Vitr., Stern, etc. Siphra, p. 148, 2: ‘*The words of the law 
8 Cf. Vitr., Calov., etc. are the crown of the head, — col/yrium, to the 
4 Ὁ. ἃ Lap. eyes,” In Schottgen. 
5 Aret., Vitr., Hengstenb., etc. 12 N. de Lyra, Aret.,-Calov., Vitr., Heng- 
6 Cf. viii. 11. 7 Luther. stenb., etc. 
8 j.e., fides formata. N. de Lyra. 13 Ebrard. 14 Ver. 15 sqq. 


9 Hengstenb, 15 Ver. 19 sqq. 


Η CHAP. III. 19, 20. 181 
ii. 27. Even here the prefixed zap’ ἐμοῦ applies,! for the Holy Ghost is the 
Spirit of Christ, sent by him.? The correct knowledge attained by such 
enlightening (iva βλέπῃς) is, however, in fact, at the same time the true 
treasure, spiritual riches. Upon this depends the inner harmony in the co- 
ordination of the three points χρυσίον, κ.τ.}., ἱμάτια λευκά, K.7.A., aNd κολλούριον, 
k.7.A., a8 in ver. 17 πτωχός, τυφλός, and γυμνός. 

Ver. 19. ᾿Εγώ emphatically prefixed. The Lord, who alone is the true 
witness (ver. 14), and, at the same time, the one from whom the true gold 
can be obtained (ver. 18), appears as witness against those whom he loves, 
since through his ἐλέγχειν and παιδεύειν he wishes to make them zealous unto 
repentance (ζηλ. κ᾿ werav), and thus participant of his eternal blessings. — 
ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ. Concerning the ἐὰν after the relative in N. T. diction, cf. my 
note on 1 John iii. 20. Grot. says incorrectly: “ φιλῶ, not absolutely, but 
relatively; i.e., those whom I have not altogether determined, because of 
their long-continued sins, to cast away and harden.” Upon a similar mis- 
understanding rests the remark of Vitringa, that the kind address is directed 
only to the better part of the church. On the contrary, tlie entire church is 
stillan object of the seeking love of the Lord. — ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω. The dis- 
tinction between the two expressions does not lie in the ἐλέγχειν occurring by 
means of words, and the παιδεύειν by chastisements ; 8 but the παιδεύειν desig- 
nating discipline, i.e., education in general,* may occur as well by ἐλέγχειν, as 
by perceptible chastisements, as μαστιγοῦν. The ἐλέγχειν ὁ occurs when the 
wrong is so placed before the eyes of any one that he must acknowledge it. 
From ver. 15 on, the Lord has exercised his ἐλέγχειν by completely disclosing 
the faults of the church; yet he expressly says that this, as well as his entire 
παιδεύειν, proceeds from love. It is nowhere said that in this he has already 
employed, or will employ, what are the proper means of chastisement 
(blows). On the other hand, to the παιδεύειν belongs the advice of ver. 18. 
Yet this advice contains the express assurance, that, with the Lord, gold, 
etc., shall not be lacking. Hence not only the relentless ἐλέγχειν, but also 
the tendering of grace, is a παιδεύειν, which testifies to the Lord’s love. But 
if the Lord thus manifests himself to the “lukewarm” church, it follows 
that this (οὖν) has to do what the command expressly says: ζήλευε οὖν καὶ 
petavinoov. The words contain not a hysteron proteron,’ but require of the 
church which is convicted of lukewarmness, an ardent zeal, enkindled by 
the love manifested by the Lord, and, as the proof of this zeal, a true change 
of mind.§ 

Ver. 20. If the epistle to the church at Laodicea be regarded as having a 
design differing in no essential point from that of the other epistles, neither 
can ver. 20 be regarded the epilogue,® which rather comprises only vv. 21, 22, 
nor can the eschatological sense in ver. 20, which is properly made prom- 
inent by Ebrard, be denied, as is usually done. The ᾿Ιδού ἕστηκα ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν 


1 Cf. 1 John, l. c. 5 Cf. Heb. xii. 6 with Prov. iii. 12. 

2 Cf. Acts ii. 33; John xvi. 7, 14. 6 Cf. John xvi. 8, viii. 46, iii. 20; 1 Cor. xiv. 
3 Blows, Luke xxiii., xvi. 22. Aret., Grot. 24. 7 De Wette. 

Acts xxii. 3, vii. 22; Tit. ii. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 8 Cf. Grot., Beng., Hengstenb., Ebrard. 


25. 9 Vitr. 


182 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


καὶ κρούω, k.7.A., is essentially nothing else than the ἐρχομαι ταχύ, or ἥξω with its 
paracletic applications.1_ The door before which the Lord stands, and asks 
entrance by his knock (κρούω) and call (cf. ἀκ. τ. φωνῆς wou), 1s ordinarily under- 
stood as the door of the heart,? and, accordingly, the κρούειν, as the preach- 
ing of the gospel,’ the movements occasioned by the Holy Spirit,* while 
special providential dispensations, are also added. The ἐισελεύσομαι, κ.τ.}.» 


is not then understood in its full personal sense,® and the δειπνήσω limited ᾽"᾿ 
either entirely to the blessed communion of believers with the Lord in this © 
life,” or, as is entirely out of place, to the communion in the present and the ᾿ 


future life. The latter reference Beng. obtains by understanding the dem». 
yer’ αὐτοῦ of the earthly, and the κ. αὖτ. μετ. ἐμοῦ of the heavenly life. In their 


peculiar nature the κρούειν and the φωνῇ of the Lord, whereby he asks en- 


trance, are not distinct from the ἐλέγχειν and παιδεύειν, ver. 19, just as it is 
from the same love that he does both the former and the latter. His com- 
ing is near; he stands already before the door. And he wishes the church 
at Laodicea also to be prepared to receive him, in order that he may not 
come in judgment,? but to enter therein, and hold with it the feast of blessed 
communion.!© The sense, especially of the formula dey. μετ’ αὐτοῦ x. αὐτὸς 
per’ ἐμοῦ, expressing the complete communion of the one with the other, is 
that of John xvii. 24; Col. iii. 4.11: — An immediate connection with Cant. 
v. 212 is not discernible; although it is incorrectly assertqd!* that in the 
N. T. in general, and in the Apoc. especially, no trace whatever of the Song 
of Solomon can be detected. Ebrard, appropriately: “The figure (of the 
wedding), or this idea together with the general doctrine of the relation of 
Christ to his Church as bridegroom, depends upon the Song of Solomon.” 
But in our passage the idea, in general, of Christ as bridegroom is not 
definitely expressed.14 [See Note XLI., p. 184.] 

Vv. 21, 22. Cf. ii. 26, 27. The νικᾶν embraces the temptations and 
perils lying in the peculiar circumstances of the Church,’® but is not limited 
thereto, so that it can correspond to the Lord’s conflict and victory in suffer- 
ing.16— The promised reward δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι, «.7.4., 1.e., participation in 
Christ’s royal dominion,” is here, just as at the close of all the epistles, to be 
expected as the victory over the world, sin, and death,* only in eternity, and 
not in this life, since the ἐκάθισα, «.7.2., has occurred to the Lord through his 
ascension.!9 Entirely wrong is Caloy.’s distinction between the throne of 
God the Father, whereon Christ sits, and the throne of Christ, whereon the 
believer is to sit with him, The throne of God and of the Lamb is one; 


1 ij. 5, 16, iii. 3,11. Cf. also ii. 10, 22 sq. 10 Cf. ch. xix.; Matt. χχν. 1 sqq. 
2 N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Stern, Aret., Grot., 11 Cf., on both passages, in the preceding 
Calov., Vitr., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb. verses, the corresponding description of the 
3 Aret, etc. earthly fellowship of faith with the Lord. 
4 De Wette. 12 Hengstenb.; several ancient expositors. 
5 Hengstenb. 13 Ew., De Wette. 
6 Grot.: “ Jesus Christ, where he sends his 14 Especially against Eichh., Heinr. 
Spirit.” 15 Ver. 16 sq. 16 Cf. ν. 5. 
7 N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Grot., Hengstenb., 17 Cf. i. 9, xxii. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 12. 
CEC Sons 18 Vitr. 
8 Vitr., Calov., Stern, etc. 19 Of. Heb. xii. 2; Phil. ii. 9. 


9 Cf. ver. 3, ii. 5. 20 xxii. 1. 


- NOTES. 183 


the glory of the victor is communion with the Father and the Son. The 
promise to the victor is here made so strong, not because the struggle which 
the Laodiceans had to maintain against their own lukewarmness is regarded 
the most severe,? but because it is natural and suitable, that, in the last of the 
seven epistles, such a*promise should be expressed as would combine all 
the others, and designates the highest and most proper goal of all Christian 
hope, and the entire Apocalyptic prophecy. 


ΝΌΟΤΕΒ BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XXXV. Ver. 4. περιπατήσουσιν per’ ἐμοῦ ἐν λευκοῖς. 


Trench: ‘‘ The promise of life, for only the living walk, the dead are still; 
of liberty, for the free walk, and not the fast-bound.’’ Gerhard (Zoc. Th., xx. 
328) finds, in the white garments, ‘‘ the symbol of victory, innocency, glory, and 
joy, yea, even royal dignity.’? Gebhardt: ‘‘ The bright or white garments sy1a- 
bolize positive purity, holiness, or righteousness (cf. xix. 8).”’ 


XXXVI. Ver. 5. τῆς βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς. 


If an erasure from the book of life be regarded possible, the inscription can- 
not refer to election, as this is indefectible. But it seems to be pressing the 
passage too far, to derive from it such meaning; as the expression is, in fact, 
simply a litotes whereby to emphasize the certainty of salvation, i.e., an 
assumed, but not a real, possibility. 


XXXVI. Ver. 7. τὴν κλεῖν Δαυείδ, 


Trench: ‘‘ Those keys which he committed to Peter and his fellow-apostles 
(Matt. xvi. 19), he announces to be, in the highest sense, his own. It depends 
on him, the supreme κλῃδοῦχος in the house of God, who shall see the King’s 
face, and who shall be excluded from it. From the highest tribunal on earth, 
there lies an appeal to a tribunal of yet higher instance in heaven, —to His, who 
opens, and no man can shut; who shuts, and no man can open; and when, 
through ignorance or worse than ignorance, any wrong has been done to any 
of his servants ‘here, he will redress it there, disallowing and reversing, in 
heaven, the erring or unrighteous decrees of earth.” 


XXXVIII. Ver. 8. ὅτι μικρὰν ἔχεις δύναμιν. 


Plumptre: ‘‘ The words point to something in the past history of the church 
of Philadelphia and its ruler, the nature of which we can only infer from them 
and from their context. Some storm of persecution had burst upon him, prob- 
ably at Smyrna, instigated by the Jews, or the Judaizing section of the church. 
They sought to shut the door which he had found open, and would have kept 
so. They were strong, and he was weak; numbers were against him, and one 
whose faith was less real and living might have yielded to the pressure. But he, 
though not winning, like Antipas, the martyr’s crown, had yet displayed the 


6 Cf. John xvii. 22, 24. 7 Ebrard. 


184 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


courage of the confessor. Like the faithful servant in the parable, he had thus 
been faithful in a very little (Matt. xxv. 23); and therefore, as the promise that 
follows shows, he was to be ‘ made ruler over many things.’ ”’ 


XXXIX. Ver. 14. 7 dpx7 Tic κτίσέως. 


Philippi (Kirch. Glaub., ii. 215): ‘* He is the beginning of the creation; the 
beginning, and, as such, the principle, the original source, and author, and 
therefore not himself a creature. So God himself is also called the beginning 
and the end (Rev. xxi. 6), and, in like manner, Christ (xxii. 18).”’ Gebhardt 
(pp. 90-98) refutes the interpretations of Baur, Hoekstra, Kostlin, Weiss, and 
Ritschl; and states the true interpretation to be as follows: ‘‘ What exposition 
is demanded by the laws of language? Without further delay, I reply, that, 
had the seer written ‘the beginning of the creatures (κτίσματα) of God,’ or had 
he written ‘the first, or the first-born, or the first-fruit (πρῶτος, πρωτότοκος, 
anaox7), of the creation of God,’ then the expression might be understood to 
denote the first created, or that which precedes all things, the first creature in 
time and rank. But the seer has written 7 ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, Which can 
mean nothing else than principium creationis, the principle, the ἐν 6, dv’ οὗ, εἰς 
6, of the creation of God. After this affirmation of the literal sense, I may say 
that it finds confirmation ini. 17, 18; ii. 8. . .. Toa church in which Christ 
not only discovers self-blindness, but which he threatens to spew out of his 
mouth, which he counsels to seek help from himself for its disease, to which he 
says that he rebukes and chastens those whom he loves, —in a word, toa church 
to which he reveals himself as to no other in his fullest and highest significance, 
and we must remember that we have to do with the last of the seven letters, — 
‘‘ the first creature’ has not, in any of its possible meanings, a really satisfac- 
tory sense; and we find that sense only when we understand it to mean the 
principle of the creation of God, i.e., the personal, mediatorial, essential ground 
and end of the creation. Thus simply explained, according to the laws of lan- 
guage, the passage (iii. 14), taken in connection with those quoted before, fur- 
nishes us with a very remarkable result, viz., that the seer has expressed the 
‘ Logos’ idea itself in its highest meaning.”’ 


XL. Ver. 17. οὐκ vidag ὅτι, k.7.A, 


Plumptre: ‘‘ As Mr. Carlyle has somewhere put it, in one of those epigrams 
that haunt one’s memory, ‘it is the hypocrisy which does not know itself to be 
hypocritical.’ It may be noted, as tending to confirm the assumption that the 
Gospel of St. John and the Apoc. were the work of the same writer, that this 
is the fault which in the former, again and again, he notes for special condem- 
nation. Those who could not believe are less the object of his censure than 
those who, believing, feared to confess the Christ lest they should be put out of 
the synagogue (John xii. 42, 43).” 


XLI. Ver. 20. ἰδοὺ ἔστηκα, κ.τ.1, 


Alford, on the contrary: ‘‘ The reference to Cant. v. 2 is too plain to be fora 
moment doubted; and, if so, the interpretation must be grounded in that con- 
jugal relation between Christ and the Church, — Christ and the soul, — of which 
that mysterious book is expressive. This being granted, we may well say that 


NOTES. 185 


the vivid depiction of Christ standing at the door is introduced to bring home 
to the lukewarm and careless church the truth of his constant presence, which 
she was so deeply forgetting. His knocking was taking place, partly by the 
utterance of these very rebukes, partly by every interference in justice and 
mercy.’”? Trench: ‘The very language which Christ uses here, the κρούειν ἐπὲ 
τὴν θύραν, the summons ἀνοίγειν recurs. Nor is the relation between the one 
passage and the other merely superficial and verbal. The spiritual condition of 
the bride there is, in fact, precisely similar to that of the Laodicean angel here. 
Between sleeping and waking, she has been so slow to open the door, that, 
when at length she does so, the Bridegroom has withdrawn. This exactly corre- 
sponds to the lukewarmness of the angel here. Another proof of the connec- 
tion between them is, that, although there has been no mention of any thing but 
a knocking here, Christ goes on to say, ‘If any man hear my voice.’ What can 
this be but an allusion to the words in the canticle, which have just gone béfore: 
‘It is the voice of my beloved that knocketh’ ?”’ 

The reference, by Bengel, of the δειπνήσω to the communion both in this 
life and the life to come, may have found, in the distinction between μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
and μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, more than is intended; nevertheless, we can see, in this passage, 
only the blessed communion with God begun here on earth, and consummated 
in heaven, — not two communions, but one, at two different stages. Gebhardt 
(p. 127) finds the thought of the Lord’s Supper suggested. Luthardt’s brief 
notes refer to Luke xii. 36; interpreting the knocking as the impending return 
of the Lord, the opening of the door, by suggesting the familiar hymn of Paul 
Gerhardt, — 


*¢ Oh, how shall I receive thee? ’* — 


and the supping, by the Lord’s Supper in the kingdom of God (Matt. xxvi. 29; 
Luke xxii. 29, 30). 

In connection with the ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς, Trench’s remarks are impor- 
tant as to the incompatibility of this passage with any doctrine of irresistible 
grace; as well as his warning against the Pelagian error, ‘‘as though men could 
open the door of their heart when they would, as though repentance was not 
itself a gift of the exalted Saviour (Acts v. 31). They can only open when Christ 
knocks, and they would have no desire at all to open unless he knocked... . 
This is a drawing, not a dragging; a knocking at the door, not a breaking 
open the heart.”” So Gerhard (L. T., ii. 275): ‘‘ When God, by his word, knocks 
at the door of our heart, especially by the proclamation of his law, the grace of 
the Holy Spirit is at the same time present, who wishes to work conversion in 
our heart; and therefore, in his knocking, he not only stands without, but also 
works within.”’ 


7 


186 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 1. ἠνεῳγμένη, Elz.; so also δὲ, Tisch. [W. and H.]. The form ἀνεῳγμ. (A), 
approved by Lach., depends upon a clerical error occasioned by the a in θύρα, as 
in 19, 11, where even A has the form ἤνεῳγμ. ; cf., besides, xi. 19, xx. 12. Winer, 
p. 70. —Aéywv. So, already, Griesb., instead of the correction λέγουσα (Elz.). 
— Ver. 2. The καὶ before εὐθέως (Elz.) is, according to A, δὲ, 2, 4, 8, al., Syr., 
Vulg., to be deleted (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]); cf., already, Griesb.: yet the 
μετὰ ταῦτα here, as in i. 9, is to be combined with δεῖ γενέσθαι, not (Lach.) with 
εὐθέως. ---- ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον καθήμενος. So, already, Beng., according to A, δὲ, 2, 4, 
6, 7, al., Vulg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Incorrectly, Elz.: ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου. ---- 
In this often-recurring phrase, ἐπὶ is found with the accus., iv. 4, xi. 16, xvii. 3, 
xix. 11; also vi. 2, 4 (Elz., dat.), according to A, C, & (Beng., Lach., Tisch.). 
With the gen., iv. 10, v. 1, 7; also vi. 16, Elz., Lach. — On the other hand, 
Tisch.: dat., according to 4, 6, 9, 8, al.). With the dat., iv. 9 (A, 8, Lach. — 
But Elz., Tisch. [W. and H.]: gen.), v. 19 (" [W. and H.]: gen.), vii. 10, xix. 4, 
xxi. 5, where, in the Elz., the gen. throughout stands improperly. — Ver. 3. 
The ἦν before ὅμοιος (Elz.) is, according to the testimonies, and with Lach., 
Tisch. [W. and H.], to be deleted; cf. i. 14, 15.— Ver. 4. Elz.: θρόνοι εἴκοσι καὶ 
τέσσαρες" καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς θρόνους εἶδον τοὺς εἴκοσι Kal τέσσαρας mpeoB, Certainly false, in 
this reading, is: first, the (twofold) «ai before τεσσ. ; secondly, the explanation 
εἶδον beside the art. τούς. It is doubtful whether with Lach., Tisch. IX., θρόνους 
εἴκοσι τέσσερας must be read; for, in A, this accus. may have been inserted 
because of what follows. Beng., Griesb., Tisch. [W. and H.], etc., have the 
nominative. It is, further, doubtful whether the number should be combined 
the second time with θρόνους or with πρεσβυτ. The former is preferred by Lach., 
Tisch. IX., according to A, 17, 18, 19 (x. ἐπὲ τ, εἴκ, τέσσ. θρον. mpeoB.); the latter 
by Tisch. [W. and H.] (τ. ἐπὶ τ. 6p. τοὺς etx, τεσσ. πρεσβ.: cf. 18, 26, 27, Areth.). 
It is, however, very possible that the reading of 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, al., according to 
which the number without τοὺς stands between τὶ θρόνους and πρεσβυτ., and 
accordingly could be taken with both nouns, is original. The reading, there- 
fore, which is exegetically the more suitable, is etx. τεσσ. mpeo8. & has only καὶ 
πρεσβ., without ἐπὶ τ. θρ., and without the repetition of the number, — possibly 
the original reading. — The ἐν before ἱματίοις (Elz., Tisch.) is probably false; it 
is wanting in A, Vulg., Lach. [W. and H.]. The ἔσχον (Elz.) before ἐπὶ τ. Keg. 
is doubtless an interpretation. — Ver. 7. Instead of ὡς ἄνθρωπος (Elz., Beng.), ὡς 
ἀνθρώπου (A, Vulg., al., Treg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]) is to be read, unless 
possibly ἀνθρώπου alone (2, 4, 6, al., Aeth., Ar., Andr., Areth., Matth.) is to be 
regarded the original reading. δὲ: ὡς ὅμοιον dvOpomw.—Instead of πετωμένῳ 
(Elz.), write here and in viii. 13, xiv. 6, xix. 17, πετομ. (A, &, 9, 14, 16, 19, Andr., 
Areth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). Cf. the scholium in Wetst.: πέταμαι οὐδεὶς 
τῶν ῥητόρων eimev, ἀλλὰ πέτομαι. ---- Ver. 8. ἕν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ εἶχον. So Elz. But 
Beng. and Griesb. already write correctly: ἕν καθ᾽ ἕν αὐτῶν ἔχον (A, B, 2, 4, 6, 7, 
10, al., Lach.). The ἔχων in A, which is approved here by Tisch. [W. and H.], 


CHAP. IV. 187 


occurs also in ver. 7 in A, —not received there by Tisch., 1854, — in both places 
apparently as a clerical error. δὲ: ἕν ἕκαστον. αὐτῶν eiyov,— Ver. 11. Instead of 
the simple κύριε (Elz., Griesb.), read, according to A, B, 2, 3, al., Vulg.: ὁ κύριος 
καὶ 6 θεὸς ἡμῶν (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]); & has both.—7oav. So A, 8, 2, 3, 
4, al. pl., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. A mere modification is the εἰσι 
in Elz. Also, the isolated variation οὐκ ἧσαν, which Ew. favors, seems to bea 
not inapt expedient; since, by the inner combination of the οὐκ ἦσαν and ἐκτίσθ, 
(‘‘when they were not, they were created,’ Ew.), the difficulty of the ἦσαν in 
the correct text is avoided. — That the words καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν are lacking in A, is 
only an oversight, as the eye of the transcriber wandered from the ἧσαν directly 
to the final syllable of ἐκτίσθ ---- ynoar, 


In chapter iv. (and v.), the real divine foundation for the entire suc- 
ceeding prophetic Apoc. (up to xxii. 5) is presented in a plastic manner. 
For the living God himself, whose throne in eternal glory is portrayed in ch. 
iv., determines what is to happen (dei yev., cf. i. 1,19). Thus from him pro- 
ceeds all revelation spoken by the mouth of a prophet,! and that, too, through 
the mediation of Christ.2 Beng., appropriately: “In fact, this book (of 
John) describes not only what occurs on earth in good and evil, but also 
how things originate from the kingdom of light, and partly from the king- 
dom of darkness, and how they again extend thither.”® But as in i. 12 sqq., 
the appearance of Christ was of such a nature as to stand in a living relation 
to the discourses of the Lord to his Church, following in chs. ii. and iii., so 
also the appearance of the Lord in ch. iv. already makes us know in advance 
that it treats of impending judgment towards enemies, and a showing of 
grace to believers. The holy and omnipotent majesty beheld of Him who 
was, and is, and is to come, and the standing of the “elders” about his throne, 
— already points, even apart from definite individual features, to the essen- 
tial contents of the revelation which is to be expected. Cf. Beng.; also 
Hengstenb., who, however, inaccurately and erroneously says, “ What is 
to occur afterwards is shown John. Accordingly, in ver. 2 sqq., we are to 
expect not a description of that which always is, but only a symbolical fore- 
shadowing of the future.” ' 

If now we compare with the description, ch. iv., rabbinical representa- 
tions, such as More Nevoch, II. 6: ‘*God does nothing unless he have con- 
sidered it in his family above,” and Schir. Haschirim R., fol. 93: “God does 
nothing unless he have first consulted concerning it with his family above,’ 4 
—we dare not overlook the essential distinction that the Johannean view is 
nothing but a development of O. and N. T. fundamental truths, while the 
rabbins have only a corruption of them.’ For “the family above,” which, 
according to the rabbins, participates in the determining of God’s counsels, 
in John has only to adore and praise the decree together with God’s works; 
and the visions beheld by John, in which future things are portrayed to him 
while in the Spirit, are in no respect the heavenly prelude of earthly events 


1 Cf. i. 1. 4 In Wetst. 
2 Cf. v. 1 sqq. 5 Against Wetst., Eichh., Heinr., Ew., 
8 Cf. also Ew., De Wette, Ebrard. etc. 


188 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


stated by the rabbins.! Tll-founded is the remark of Heinrichs: “In every 
chapter, the poet does nothing but testify that he has beheld the theatre 
whence the Messiah is to return to earth as the lofty and majestic” . . . 

Ver. 1. Mera ταῦτα eidov. The formula marks the entrance of a new 
vision, and that, too, a greater or more important one,? while the formula 
καὶ εἶδον introduces the various individual features represented in the course 
of a larger main picture. The formula καὶ εἶδον, xili. 1 and xvii. 3, stands 
at the beginning of an entirely new important division, and is therefore 
regular, because in both passages the opening of a new scene is indicated by 
the entire preceding verse, which in a measure prevents there the μετὰ ταῦτα. 
But since by the μετὰ ταῦτα the vision now following is distinguished from 
what is completed in 111. 22,—the ταῦτα referring back to the entire vision 
in i. 10-iii. 22, —it is in no way indicated that between iii. 22 and iv. 1 
there is a space in which John was not “in the Spirit,” but in his ordinary 
consciousness, and perhaps penned the seven epistles. Thus Beng.: ‘‘ John — 
always comprehended one part after another in sight and hearing, and im- 
mediately wrote it.” Cf. also Aret., Grot., Calov., Hengstenb.; and, against 
the latter, Ebrard’s correct protest. Even De Wette, who nevertheless cor- 
rectly acknowledges that John is already (iv. 1) ‘‘in Spirit,” viz., from i. 10, 
fixes the committing of the seven epistles to writing between iii. 22 and 
iv. 1. But nowhere in the course of the entire revelation (i. 10-xxii. 16) is 
any temporary return from the ecstatic condition to ordinary consciousness 
conceivable, and therefore a partial noting-down is nowhere possible. The 
εἶδον, iv. 1, undoubtedly indicates that the “ being in Spirit” beginning with 
i. 10 continues unbroken ;4 and from iv. 1 to the close of the entire revela- 
tion, an interruption of the ecstatic consciousness can nowhere be admitted, 
since the vision which follows always is developed from that which precedes.§ 
There is only one “being in Spirit,” 6 in which John beheld the entire reve- 
lation with al] its changing, yet coherent, scenes. — θύρα ἤνεῳγμ. ἐν τ. οὐρανῳ. 
The opening of heaven? is explained by means of a door, from the fact 
neither that heaven is regarded a firm arch,® nor that John is to enter 
heaven,? nor that heaven appears as a temple;?° but that heaven is the 
house,!! the palace of God (in which he is enthroned, Ps. xi. 4, xviii. 7, 
xxix. 9).12 -- ἡ φωνὴ, «.7.A. Not the voice of Christ,18 who indeed had spoken 
(chs. ii., iii.) 14 after the jirst voice, but the voice first heard, which already 
(i. 10) is no further defined, and here also cannot be further designated 
than as it is identical with the former.—Aéywv. The construction “accord- 


1 Cf. Wetst.: ‘* According to the idea of the 5 Cf. Introduction, p. 12 sqq. 
Jews, what is to occur on earth is first mani- 6 j. 10. 
fested and represented in heaven before the 7 Of. Ezek. i. 11; Matt. iii. 16; Acts x. 11. 
assembly of angels.” 8 Heinr. 
2 vii. 1, 9, xv. 5, xviii. 1. 9 De Wette. Cf. Grot. 
3 vy. 1, 6,:11, vi. 1, 5, 8,9, 12, viii. 2, 18, ix. 1, 10 Vitr., Ziill. 
x. 1, xiii. 11, xiv. 6, 14, xv. 1, 2, xvii. 6, xix. 11, 11 Gen. xxviii. 17. 
5 Uy ati Ke >. oa (PRY Bi In Ue Sa bt IP 12 Of. Kichh. 
4 Ver. 2 does not contradict this, if only we - 13 Hengstenb., Klief., etc. 
do not, like Hengstenb., identify the being 14 Cf. i. 17 sqq. 


‘‘in Spirit’ and ‘‘ in heaven.” 15 1, 10. 


CHAP. IV. 2. 189 


ing to sense”? is especially easy with the λεγων 2 introducing the direct 
address.2— ’AvaGa. With respect to the form, cf. Acts xii. 7; Mark xv. 30 
(var.); Eph. v. xvii. Winer, p. 76. John ascending to heaven and to the 
things there to be seen, through the door opened on this account, which he 
beheld in ver. 1, is immediately present in spirit* at the significant represen- 
tation of that which is henceforth to happen.® Klief., in violation of the 
context, asserts that a more elevated station is meant, from which John 
could look as well through the opened door into heaven, as also to a greater 
distance upon earth. — καὶ δείξώ, «.7.A4. Thus the heavenly voice speaks, al- 
though the person to whom it belongs cannot be more definitely known, — as 
in later visions, where, however, the same angel does not everywhere appear 
as interpreter, and “show,” — because the voice sounds forth in the name of 
the personal God himself, who, nevertheless, is efficacious beneath the one 
who shows (i 1), and causes also the prophet to be in the Spirit (cf. ver. 2). 
— ἃ δεῖ γεν. Cf. i. 1. — μετὰ ταῦτα, as i. 19. 

Ver. 2. εὐθέως ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι. The asyndeton emphasizes the signifi- 
cance of the εὐθέως. After John has heard the voice, ver. 1, he is immediately 
—and that too because of the voice §—‘“in the Spirit,” and thereby made 
capable of ascending into heaven, and beholding the objects there pre- 
sented. Although in ver. 1, John is already ἐν πνεύματι, i.e., in such a condi- 
tion that he beholds the opened door, and can hear the heavenly voice, yet 
the mode of presentation, ver. 2, which, considered in itself alone, can desig- 
nate the entire recent entrance of the ecstatic condition, has its justifica- 
tion in that an entirely new elevation of prophetic ecstasy belongs thereto, 
whereby John can ascend in spirit to heaven, and behold what is there 
shown him. Hence De Wette and Ebrard properly compare with this, 
Ezek. xi. 5. Even Hengstenb.? has to acknowledge, that, while ver. 2 
designates “the complete entrance into the state of ecstasy,” yet ver. 1 
already is to be regarded a “preparation ” to this condition. — Ziill., incor- 
rectly, just as i. 10: “1 was there {in heaven] by ecstasy.” — In rapid suc- 
cession directly follows the description of that which is presented to the 
view of the one drawn into heaven : καὶ ἰδοὺ, θρόνος ἔκειτο, x.7.A. To this entire 
description, there is a parallel in the Pirke, R. Elieser,’ which is very instruc- 
tive, because it shows how differently, with many similar features, the O. T. 
types 9 appear in a N. T. prophet, and the rabbins: 19 “ Four bands of minis- 
tering angels praise God. The first is of Michael, on the right; the second, 
of Gabriel, on the left; the third, of Uriel, before him; the fourth, of Raphael, 
behind him. But the shekinah of God is in the centre, and he himself is 
seated on a lofty, elevated throne; and his seat is high, suspended in the 
air. The splendor of his magnificence is like Chasmal (Ezek. i. 4). Upon 


1 Cf. ver. 8, xi. 15, xix. 14; Eph. iv. 18; 7 Cf. on ver. 1. 

Mark ix. 26. Winer, p. 489. 8 ¢. 4 in Schéttgen. 
=, Ion. 9 Isa. vi.; Ezek. i.; Dan. vii. 9sqq.; 1 Kings 
3 Of., besides, Winer, p. 560. xxii. 29. 
4 Cf. ver. 2. 10 Cf. also R. Rocholl, Ueber Merkabah., 
5 Cf. καὶ δείξω, κ.τ.λ. Zeitschr. f. Luther. Theolog., 1875, p. 393 


6 C.a Lap., Beng., etc. sqq. 


“ 


190 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


his head is placed a crown, and upon his brow a diadem with Schemham- 
phorasch. His eyes go through the whole earth; a part of them is fire, but 
a part hail. On his right is life; on his left, death; and a fiery sceptre is 
in his hand. Before him is stretched out a veil (375), and seven angels 
who were created from the beginning minister before him within the veil. 
But that which is called 3))55, and the footstool of his feet, are like fire and 
lightning, and shine beneath the throne of his glory like sapphire and fire. 
About his throne are righteousness and judgment. The place of his throne 
is that of the seven clouds surrounding him with glory; and the wheel of his 
chariot, and the cherub, and the living ones give to him glory. His throne 
is like sapphire, and at his feet are four living ones, each of whom has four 
faces, and as many wings. When God speaks from the east, this is done 
between the two cherubim with the face of a man; when from the south, 
then between the two cherubim with the face of a lion; when from the 
west, then between the two cherubim with the face of an ox; when from 
the north, then between the two cherubim with the face of an eagle. —The 
living ones also stand beside the throne of glory, yet they know not the 
place of his glory. The living ones stand also in fear and trembling, in 
horror and agitation, and from this agitation of their faces, a river of fire 
flows forth before them. Of the two seraphim, one stands at God’s right 
hand, another at his left. Each has six wings; with two they cover their 
face, lest they may see the face of the shekinah; with two they cover their feet, 
lest the feet may see the shekinah, and immediately be able to find his 
footstep; but with two they fly, dread and sanctify his great name. One 
cries out, and another replies, saying, etc. — And the living ones stand 
beside his glory, yet they know not the place of his glory, but in every place 
where his glory is, they ery and say, Blessed be the glory of God in its 
place.” --- θρόνος éxecro. The expression κεῖσθαι indicates neither an especial 
breadth of the throne,! nor that it rests upon the cherubim,? because the word 
here, as in Jer. xxiv. 1, LX X.; John ii. 6, xix. 29, and in the classics,® ex- 
presses the simple idea of “being placed.’?*—x«ai ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον καθήμενος. 
The mode of representation itself, according to which the reference here is 
to “one sitting,” and in ver. 3,5 the one mentioned in ver. 2 is described 
simply as “the sitting one,” shows that John does not mention this sitting 
one more definitely, because he wishes here to do nothing more than with 
perfect fidelity to report the vision which he has had.* Ini. 12 sqq., also, 
he has not expressly mentioned the manifestation of Christ. Utterly pre- 
posterous is the declaration of Heinr.: ‘The name seems to have been omit- 
ted only by carelessness in writing, which is especially conspicuous in this 
entire chapter.” Just as impertinent is the allusion to the Jewish dread of 
uttering the name of God.? Suitable in itself to John would be the expla- 
nation of Herder: “To name him, the soul has no image, language no 
word; ’’® but even this is not here applicable, as John in general, even where 


1 Beng. 5 Cf. ver. 11, v. 1. 
2 Hengstenb. Of. ver. 6. 6 Cf. Hengstenb. 
3 Cf. Meyer on John ii. 6. 7 Kichh., Ew. 


4 De Wette, δυτατά. 8 Cf. Aret., De Wette, etc. 


CHAP, IV. 3. | 191 


he definitely mentions the vision here described, expressly calls God the 
enthroned one:!_ These passages show at the same time that the enthroned 
one is regarded 3 not as the Triune God,’ but as God the Father, in distinc- 
tion from the Son,‘ and the Spirit.6 So Alcas., Stern, Grot., Wetst., Vitr., 
Beng., Hengstenb., etc. | 

Ver. 3. ὁράσει. Dative of manner:® “in appearance,” cf. ἡ ὄψις, .7.2., 1. 16, 
and the ὡς ὅρασις with the following gen. of the object compared in the LXX. 
Ezek. i. 4, 26 sqq., vill. 2. --- λίθῳ ἰάσπιδι καὶ capdiw. The odpdwc™ is, as the 
Heb. name indicates, a red,® particularly flesh-colored gem, our carnelian. 
Ebrard understands by it the dazzling ruby. — More difficult is the deter- 
mination of the iasme. The LXX. thus render the Heb. ΠΞ 2) 9 yet in this 
passage, as well as also in xxi. 11, where the iaome is designated as λίθος 
τιμιώτατος, aNd κρυσταλλίζων, it is scarcely possible to think of the not very 
costly and not transparent, sometimes greenish, sometimes reddish gem, 
which the Romans called, as we also call it, jasper. Cf. Pliny:1° “A gem, 
which, although surpassed by many, yet retains the glory of antiquity.” 
Nevertheless, the most of the expositors adhere firmly to the simple expres- 
sion. Andr., Areth., N. de Lyra, Aretius, etc., think of the green jasper, 
and understand it, just as the emerald mentioned immediately afterwards, 
as a symbol of divine consolation, since green is agreeable to the eye. A 
symbolical reference has been discovered even to baptism,!? and the judgment 
of the flood; 18 for the red sardius denotes the final judgment in fire. Others 
think of the red jasper, as they either regard it, like the sardius, a symbol of 
the divine anger,!4 or, without any such significance,!> as only a description 
of the dazzling appearance of God. Beng., Stern., Hengstenb.,!® presuppose 
a white, crystal-clear species of jasper, and find in this color the image 
of the divine holiness and unclouded glory. This sense of the brightness of 
color is indicated partly by emblematic descriptions, as Ezek. i. 4, viil. 2; 
Dan. vii. 9 sq.; and partly by parallels, as Apoc. i. 14 sqq., x. 1.17 The 
brilliancy of light and fire is, in Ezekiel, the appearance of God. In Daniel, 
also, the bright white raiment and the dazzling white hair of the Ancient of 
days belong with the fire of his throne; for both the holy glory and the 
consuming anger of God18 must be represented. Upon the same view de- 
pends the description of the Lord,}® and of the angel, who in x. 1 appears 
invested with divine attributes, while, e.g., iv. 4, vii. 9, the heavenly beings, 
because they have attained to a holiness and glory like that of God, appear 
indeed in white garments, yet not also with the fiery signs of divine judg- 
ment, but with crowns and palms. If now the red appearance of the σάρδιος 


A vii, 10,15, xn, 5, xix. 4, xxil. 1. 9 Exod. xxviii. 20, xxxix. 13; Ezek. xxviii. 
2 Cf. i. 1; 2 Cor. xiii. 13. 13. 
3 N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Calov. 10 N. H., xxxvili. 37. 
4 «The Lamb,” v. 6 sqq. 11 N. de Lyra, etc. 
5 Cf. ver. 5. 12 Aret. 
6 Erasm. 13 Victorin, Ticon., Primas, Beda. 
7 xxi. 20. Cf. Ezek. xxvill, 17, xxxix.10;5 14 Vitr. 
LXX. for DIN. 15 Ew., De Wette, Ebrard. 
8 πυρωπὸς τῷ εἴδει καὶ αἱματοειδής (* fiery in 16 Cf. also Ew. ii. 
appearance, and blood-red”), Epiphanius in 17 Cf. Hengstenb. 


Vitr. 18 Cf. also Deut. iv. 24. 19 1, 14 sqq. 


192 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


recalls the ardor of the divine wrathful judgment, we expect the taome 
to represent the bright light, which elsewhere is displayed along with the 
divine glimmering of fire, in a different way. But now the very bright or 
crystal-clear jasper, stated by Beng. and Hengstenb., does not actually exist. 
Hence we must believe, either that John imagined an ideal kind of jasper,} 
or, as is more probable, because of xxi. 11, that by the taome he wished to 
designate the diamond.? The LXX., in whose vocabulary John was in- 
structed, do not have the term ddédyuac.2 The Heb. VW, which probably 
designates the diamond, is not accurately translated by the LXX. in Zech. 
vii. 12; Ezek. iii. 9.4 It is, besides, to be observed, that the LXX. render 
not only 79", but also 1573, Isa. liv. 12,5 by ἴασπις. But if the description 
(ver. 8) depends upon Ezek. viii. 2 and similar passages, it yet in no way 
follows that here, as there,® the brilliancy of the two gems is to be regarded 
as different parts of the form of God, —the bright light of the jasper above, 
the red appearance of the sardius beneath:7? rather, the double brilliancy of 
the two stones shining through one another® is to be regarded a profound 
designation of the essential unity of the holiness and righteousness of God. 
The free treatment of the ancient prophetic view expresses, as to the subject 
itself portrayed, a deepening of the thought; while the beauty of the likeness 
gains rather than loses, as the divine appearance to John maintains a pic- 
torial unity. The entire form of the enthroned one appears in the twofold, 
yet united, brilliancy of the jasper and the sardius, just as the entire form 
of the Lord was in appearance like intense light of the sun.® — καὶ ἰρις κυκλόθεν 
τοῦ θρόνου ὅμοιος ὁράσει σμαραγδίνῳ: Concerning ὅμοιος as an adjective of two ter- 
minations, cf. Winer, p. 66. — Against the wording (κυκλ. τ, θρόνου) is the idea 
of Vitr., that the ips surrounded the head of the one enthroned like a crown; 19 
Beng. and Hengstenb. unnaturally and unfairly regard the ipu as surround- 
ing the throne in breadth horizontally. — Hengstenb. infers, besides, from 
the formula κυκλ. τ. 6p. recurring from ver. 4, that also the thrones of the 
elders appear within the ἐρις; but it is the only natural and, in a pictorial 
respect, conceivable way, to regard the ip as surrounding the shining form 
upon the throne on high.!1— Without any basis is the controversy as to 
whether the ipu were a “rainbow,” 12 or a “bow; ”?8 nor does it in any way 
correspond to the poetical character of the description, if, in order to explain 
the rainbow, mention is made of God’s appearing, Ps. xvili. 12, civ. 3, sur- 
rounded by darkness of rain and thick clouds,}4 or that the green color here 
named is only the principal color,!5 as the hues of the jasper and sardius are 
regarded as combined with the brilliancy of the emerald, attributed to the 


1 Cf. xxi. 21. 2 Ebrard. 4 Jer. xvii. 1 is lacking in the LXX. 
8 Yet, at the time of John, the ἀδάμας was 5 i.e., the probable ruby. 
not unknown. Cf. Plin., H. N., xxxvii. 15: 6 Cf. also x. 1. 
«. Among human things, not only among gems, 7 Ziill., Hengstenb. 
the adamas, known only to kings, and these 8 Ebrard. Ὁ i. 16. 10 Cf. x. 1. 
very few, had the greatest value.— Now six 11 Ebrard, and my exp. 
kinds of it are known: That of India, of a 12 So translated by most. 
resemblance to crystal, since, also, it does not 13 Ebrard. 
differ in translucency; the Cyprian, verging 14 De Wette. 


to the color of brass.” 15 Grot., Eichh., Stern, Hengstenb., etc. 


' CHAP. IV. 4. 193 
Ipc, in order to bring out the three chief colors of one common rainbow. 
What John saw about the throne had the form of a rainbow, —hence he 
says ipic,—although not the seven colors of an actual rainbow are repre- 
sented, but only the emerald green. Yet this Ips in itself, and the emerald 
appearance especially, are not without symbolical significance, possibly in a 
mere optical contrast with the blending brilliancy of the jasper and sardius;? 
but in symmetry with the symbolical significance of this twofold brilliancy, 
the mild emerald-green of the bow, which is already in itself the clear sign 
of divine grace,’ notes the gentle and quickening nature of this grace. But 
it follows neither from the gen., nor from the pragmatism of this passage, 
that the grace recurring after the divine punishments ὅ is described ; it would 
be more correctly interpreted with Grot.: “God in his judgments is always 
mindful of his covenant.” Yet we dare not precipitately limit the descrip- 
tion here presented, in its particular connections, to the judgments of God 
in their relation to divine grace which are to be beheld only later: it is suf- 
ficient that here where the eternal and personal foundation of all that fol- 
lows is portrayed, the holy glory and righteousness of God appear in most 
intimate union with his immutable and kind grace, so that thus the entire 
impending development of the kingdom of God and the world unto its last 
end, as it is determined by that wonderful, indivisible nature of the holy, 
just, and gracious God, as well in its course as in its goal, must correspond 
to this threefold glory of the living God. Consequently this fundamental 
vision contains every thing that serves the terror of enemies, and the conso- 
lation of friends, of the one enthroned. 

Ver. 4. The twenty-four elders whom John sees sitting ® on the twenty- 
four thrones standing about the throne of God’ are, in like manner, the 
heavenly representatives of the entire people of God; as, in Isa. xxiv. 23, 
the elders are regarded the earthly heads and representatives of the entire 
Church.® For, that these twenty-four elders are human, and not a “selection 
of the entire host of heaven,” ® nor angels,!° is decided by their designation, 
that which is ascribed to them (white robes and crowns), and the entire 
mode of their employment. They are neither the “ bishops ” or “ prefects 
of the entire church,” 12 nor priests,!° nor “the entire assembly of ministers 


1 Cf. Plin., W. H., xxxvii. 5: “Nay, even 
from another intention, the dimmed sight is 
refreshed by the sight of the emerald; and, to 
those cutting gems, there is no more grateful 
treat to the eyes, than thus to soothe their 
weariness by its green mildness.” 

2 Ebrard. Cf. Ew., De Wette. 

3 Gen. ix. 12 sqq. 

* Cf. N.de Lyra, Aret., Grot., Calov., Beng., 
Herd., Hengstenb., etc. [On the spiritual sig- 
nificance of the rainbow, see the beautiful 
poem of Carl Gerock, in his Die Symphonie 
der Furben of his Der letate Strauss, 1885. ]} 

5 Stern, Hengstenb. 

6 Cf. xi. 16, ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. 

7 The acc. πρεσβυτέρους depends upon a 
self-evident εἶδον (De Wette). 


8 In reference to this passage, the TZan- 
chuma, p. 48, 1 (in Schéttg.), says: ‘In the 
future, God ascribes glory to the elders. — Our 
rabbins also have said: ‘God will make for 
himself an assembly of our elders.’”’ So, too 
(at p. 52 in Hengstenb.), according to Dan. vii. 
9, “Τὴ the future, God will sit, and the angels 
will give seats to the magnates of Israel, and 
they sit. And God sits with his elders, as the 
president of a senate, and will judge the Gen- 
tiles.” 

9 Rinck. 

11 Cf. v. 5, vii. 18. 

12 N. de Lyra, who, in their twenty-four 
seats finds, at the same time, all the cathedral 
churches portrayed. 

13 Zeger. 


10 Hofm. 


194 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

of the word,” ! nor “all true rectors and faithful pastors of the N. T. Church,” 2 
nor Christian martyrs; ὃ but simply the representatives of the entire congre- 
gation of all believers, to whom, as to these elders, belong the holiness and 
glory indicated by the white robes,* and the royal dominion by the thrones 
and crowns.* The number twenty-four is not derived from the orders of 
priests, 1 Cor. xxvi.,° for the question here is in no respect concerning 
priests; and still less’ is it to be regarded as a type of the elders of the 
church at Jerusalem, for the idea that this church had just twenty-four 
elders is without any foundation. All those expositors are in the right way 
who, proceeding from the number twelve, attempt to indicate a doubling 
of it. As now, undoubtedly, the simple as well as the doubled twelve 8 has 
particular reference to the twelve tribes of the O. T. Church, the twenty-four 
elders cannot be twelve apostles and twelve martyrs;® but also the expla- 
nation that from each of the twelve tribes two representatives are regarded 
as standing, one on the right, the other on the left of the throne of God,?° is 
of itself unimportant and arbitrary. It is possible 14 only to regard the two- 
fold twelve, either the representatives of the O. and the N. T. Church, or 
the representatives of the Church gathered not only from the Jews, but also 
from the Gentiles.18 Against the latter, Hengstenb. and Ebrard incorrectly 
say that the mode of view in the Apoc. is not conformable to that of the 
entire N. T.; for also in vii. 9 sqq., those saved from the heathen are dis- 
tinguished from those from the twelve tribes (vii. 4 sqq.), and that, too, 
without detriment to the view according to which the heathen are added to 
Israel. Yet the former explanation of the twelve representatives of the 
churches of the O. and N. T. is to be preferred, because this in itself, and 
according to intimations like xv. 3 (the song of Moses and the Lamb), is 
more immediate, and because, by this mode of statement, the twenty-four 
elders appearing in personal definitiveness can the more appropriately repre- 
sent the O. and N. T. Churches. To wit, not “the twelve tribes,” as De 
Wette inconsistently explains, but the twelve personal heads of the Church 
of the O. T., composed of twelve tribes, i.e., the twelve patriarchs, are com- 
prised in thought together with the twelve apostles, the N. T. antitypes to 
the patriarchs.14 [See Note XLII., p. 202.] The objections made against 
the holiness of the twelve patriarchs are in no way pertinent,—as they 


1 Calov. 2 Vitr. an equal title, is very remote. Klief.: The 


3 Eichh. 

4 Cf. on ver. 3. 

5 xx. 4, i. 6, iii. 21. Cf. Primas, Aret., C.a 
Lap., Beng., Herd., De Wette, Stern, Heng- 
stenb., Ebrard, etc. 

6 Zeger, Vitr., Eichh., Ew. i., Hilgenf. 

7 Grot. 

8 Or, elsewhere, the quadruple. 
8qq., xiv. 3. 

9 Joachim. 

10 Heinr. 

11 The explanation of Volkm., that the sub- 
ject here is the representation of teacher and 
hearer as parts of the Christian Church having 


Cf. vii. 4 


number twelve, the sign of the people of God, 
is doubled ‘‘ because the blessed people of 
God assembled in heaven have increased, and 
daily increase, by those added to believers 
from all nations.” But, in connection with 
this, he rejects the distinction between Jewish 
and Gentile Christianity, made only by modern 
theologians in violation of Scripture. 

12 Andr., Areth., Aret., C.a Lap., Bossuet, 
Stern, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

13 Bleek, De Wette. Cf. also Heinr. 

14 Cf, χχὶ. 12,14; Andr., Areth., Hengstenb., 
Ebrard. 

15 De Wette, according to Joach. 


= 


CHAP. IV. 5. 195 


could also be urged against the apostles, — because the patriarchs come into 
consideration not scour ding to their own conduct or individual worth, but 
as the favored chiefs of the tribes of the O. T. people. 

Ver. 5. The throne of God corresponds in its appearance to the ἀρῶν 
οἵ ‘the king sitting thereon. As in Ps. xxix.,! the regal? omnipotence of 
God is made visible in the violence of the ibunadsntanas so John here uses 
theéssame image in order to describe the unlimited omnipotence of the en- 
throned one, particularly as exercised in judgment. The throne itself, out 
of which proceeded “ the lightnings, thunderings, and voices,’’ appears filled 
with this sign of the Divine omnipotence. The φωναί which are here distin- 
guished from the βρονταί ---- 80 that passages as vi. 1, x. 3, xiv. 2,3 must not 
be here compared, — have* to be regarded as the roar which in a storm 
accompanies the thunder and lightning. The misunderstandings of the 
description depend upon the crudeness and arbitrariness of the exposition. 
So in N. de Lyra:® “ The coruscation of miracles, and declaration of rewards 
for good and the terror of punishments for evil deeds.” Solely on account 
of the ἐκπορεύονται, Aretius understood by the ἀστραπ., gwv., and βροντ.» even, 
the Holy Ghost. De Wette 8 discerns in the lightning, etc., figures of God’s 
manifestations of power and life in nature, which are to be distinguished, as 
“critical and powerful revelations of God,” from the seven lamps as “his calm 
and perpetual influences;” while in vv. 6-8, “nature itself, or the realm 
of the living,” and finally in vv. 9-11, “the harmony of creation with re- 
deemed humanity, and thus God in his living efficiency and reality,” are 
brought into consideration. But this interpretation is in more than one 
respect without foundation. The lightning, voices, and thunder are, accord- 
ing to the O. T. view, on which the present description depends,’ not figures 
of the revelation of God in nature as distinct from another revelation, but of 
the unlimited power of God, especially as judging; 19. only we dare not, with 
Grot., understand the ἀστρ. and βροντ. of general threats, but the φων. of par- 
ticular afflictions. The throne whence the lightning, ete., proceeds, agrees 
with that whose form appears to be not only like jasper, but also like 
a sardine stone. — καὶ ἑπτὰ λαμπάδες πυρὸς, x.7.A. The authentic explanation 
immediately follows: ai εἰσι ra ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf., besides, 1. 4. The 
pragmatic significance of the Spirit of God in this connection is not that the 
Spirit of God “ is the principle of the psychical 11 and spiritual life, and that 
through him the inner influence of God on nature and the human world 
occurs ;” 1? for the idea of the λαμπάδες πυρός does not suit the explanation of 
the closely connected first half of the verse. But Hengstenb. also, who very 
arbitrarily combines the “ seven” of the Spirit with the “three” of the 
lightning, voices, and thunder, into a “ten,’’ and herein finds indicated a 
connection of the Spirit with that lightning, etc., improperly thinks only of 


1 Cf. Ps. xevii. 1 sqq., xviii. 8 sqq. 7 Cf. John xv. 26. 

2 Ps. xxix. 10. 8 Cf. also Ebrard. 

8 Hengstenb. 9 Cf. viii. 5, xi. 19, xvi. 18. 
4 Cf. Exod. xix. 16. 10 Vitr., Hengstenb., etc. 

5 Cf. Vitr., Ew., Hengstenb. 11 Gen. i. 2: Ps. civ. 30. 


6 Cf. already Primas, Beda; also Zeger. 12 De Wette, Ebrard. 


196 THE REVELATION OF ST, JOHN. 


an operation of the Spirit, “bringing corruption, punishing, and annihilat- 
ing.” If also the idea of the work of the Spirit in judging! dare not be 
left out of consideration, partly because of what precedes, and partly because 
of the expression, πυρός ; on the one hand, the expression λαμπάδες, and, on 
the other, the parallel v. 6 (ὀφθαλμοῖ), indicate that the Spirit is to be re- 
garded chiefly as illuminating, seeing, searching all things,? and just on that 
account everywhere ὃ active in his holy judgments. Essentially the seven 
lamps of fire burning before the throne of God indicate nothing else than 
the eyes of the Lord “as a flame of fire” in i. 14.4 

Ver. 6. ὡς θάλασσα ὑαλίνη, ὁμοία κρυστάλλῳ.: The ὡς --- which belongs to the 
entire idea, and not chiefly to the tarinn®—stands here just as in viii. 8. 
What John further beheld before the throne of God appeared as a sea of 
glass like crystal. This is regarded as signifying baptism,’ the Holy Scrip- 
tures,’ repentance,? the present transitory world,!° ete., — all purely arbitrary. 
Without ground, further, is the allusion to the “ brazen sea” in the temple,! 
or to the bright inlaid floor, having, therefore, the appearance of a sea.!2_ It 
is in general a conception not justified by the text, to regard the “sea of 
glass” the basis of the throne, as C. a Lap., Vitr., Eichh., Heiur., Herder, 
De Wette, etc., presuppose, who from this same idea reach interpretations 
that are very different. With an appeal to Exod. xxiv. 10, Ezek. i. 26, De 
Wette 18 regards “the sea of glass” in our passage, as well as also in xv. 2, 
as a designation of “the atmosphere,” an explanation to which, in its pure 
naturalness, Exodus and Ezekiel do not apply, — where, however, in reality 
the pure ether is the natural substratum for the idea of the standing or 
enthronement of God in heavenly glory, — while in this passage the sea of 
glass is not beneath, but before, the throne of God, and the entire presentation 
is altogether foreign to “the atmosphere.” On the other hand, Vitr., Herder, 
etc., with a reference to Ps. Ixxxix. 15, and similar passages, interpret the 
sea of glass as the basis of righteousness and grace, whereon the throne of 
God is founded.44 Following Beng., Hengstenb. has understood the sea 
of glass, since it appears in xy. 2 mingled with fire, as the “product of the 
seven lamps of fire,” since and because of the expression “sea” referring to 
Ps, xxxvi. 7, as a designation of “the great and wonderful works of God, of 
his just and holy ways, of his acts of righteousness that have become mani- 
fest.”” But already the parallelism of v. 6, where these seven lamps appear 
as seven eyes, in itself renders this artificial interpretation impossible. — 
Aret., Grot., and Ebrard proceed upon the fact that the sea, viz., as stormy 


1 Cf. Isa. iv. 4; John xvi. 8. 11 Alcas., Alsted. 

2 Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 10. 12 Ew., with a comparison of the Koran, 

ἀν αν» ES CXREIX. Uc Sur. 27, 44. 

4 Of. Dan. x. 6. 13 Cf. Eichh., etc. 

5 Cf. also xv. 2. 14 Vitr.: ‘A will of God, sure and perpet- 

6 Beng. ual, whereby he determined to have, among 

7 Victorin., Tichon., Primas, Beda, N. de men, a kingdom of grace; a right sure and 
Lyra, Hoé, Calov. clear to erect such a kingdom of grace, in the 

8 Joachim. righteousness and obedience of the mediator; 

9. Alcas. this very right founded in the righteousness 


10 Par., Bull., Rib. of Christ is the basis of the throne.” 


CHAP. IV. 6. 197 


and irregularly heaving (xiii. 1), represents the mass of the nations in their 
ungodly state; and then, that the sea of glass, clear as crystal, and therefore 
firm as well as pure, designates “the creature in its pure relation to the 
Creator.”! But this interpretation is wrecked on xv. 2. According to that 
passage,? the sea, whose complete, heavenly purity is marked by the double 
designation, daa, and du, κρυστ..8 is to be regarded identical with the stream 
of the water of life, which* proceeds from the throne of God.5 The point 
thus designated belongs in fact essentially to the perfection of the view of 
the enthroned God; and according to the living relation in which the vision, 
ch. iv. [and v.], stands to all that follows, it is to be expected, that, as the 
succeeding judgments appear as the work of the holy and just omnipotence 
of the heavenly King here described, so also a definite point of the present 
fundamental description corresponds to the final glorious and blessed com- 
pletion of the kingdom of God. Since in the presence of God there is ful- 
ness of joy,® since God is the Blessed One,’ since before him and from him 
issues the river of eternal life, he himself, and communion with him, is the 
blessed goal for the development of his kingdom, and he himself is the leader 
thereto. [See Note XLIII., p. 203.] καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ κύκλῳ Tod θρόνου 
τέσσαρα ζῶα, x.7.4. The four beings 8 appear not as supporting the throne, for 
ἐν μέσῳ τ. Op. is by no means “ under the throne;”® also not as stated by Eichh., 
Ew. i., and Hengstenb., that the four ζῶα are stationed with the back under 
the throne, but with the upper part projecting therefrom so raised above the 
same that they could appear as being “ round about” the throne—an idea 
which because of its absolute deformity ought not to have been forced 
upon John. In like manner impossible is Ebrard’s opinion, that 109 the four 
ζῶα are in the midst of the (transparent!) throne, but that at the same time 
they had moved themselves with the rapidity of lightning from the same, so 
that they appeared also around about the throne. Incorrect also is Vitr., who 
makes of ἐν μέσ. and κυκλ. a strange hendiadys: “In the midst of the semi- 
circular area which was before the throne.” According to the wording of the 
text, the position of the four beings is not to be regarded else than as is most 
natural in connection with their fourfold number, viz., one on each side of 
the throne, and besides each in the midst of its respective side.14 They stand 
so free as to be able to move;!? and because they have manifestly turned 
with their faces towards the throne, John can see that they are “full of eyes 
before and behind.”18 There is no occasion whatever for the conjecture 
that the words καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων might have belonged in the text. 


1 Ebrard; Aretius: ‘‘ The assembly of the 3 Id. 4 Id. 
triumphing Church.” Grot.,in his way: ‘‘ The 5 Cf. Rinck. 
people of Jerusalem.” The ὑαλίνη and ou. 6 Cf. Ps. xvi. 11. 
Kpvot.: ** Because God perceives the actions 7 Cf. 1 Tim. i. 11. 
and thoughts of the people;” but also “ be- 8 Cf., concerning their meaning, ver. 8. 
cause of the purity of the people of Jerusa- 9 Tengstenb. 
lem.’? Klief.: ‘‘ The multitude of the blessed 10 Cf. Ezek. i. 4, 5, 14. 
conquerors from all times and nations on earth, 11 Ziill. Cf. De Wette. 
preserved in heaven with God unto the end, 12 xy. 7. 
who are represented by the twenty-four eld- 13 See on ver. 8. 
ers.”’ And this with an appeal to xv. 2. 14 Ew. ii.: “*‘ Between the chief seat and the 


2 Cf. also xxii. 1. elders.” 


198 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

Ver. 7. While, in Ezekiel,! the forms of the four cherubim 2 bear in won- 
derful combination the fourfold faces of the lion, the ox, the man, and the 
eagle, John with more distinct clearness has so seen the four beings that in 
each of them only a part of that fourfold form is expressed. In this, also, 
he is distinguished from Ezekiel, that he represents his “four beings,” not 
each with four but with six wings, as the seraphim in Isa. vi.; yet, on the 
other hand, John agrees with Ezekiel, that in him the wings, as well as the 
whole body, appear full of eyes (ver. 8).— The second being is like a μόσχος, 
i.e., not a “calf” in distinction from a grown ox, but, as is already required 
in an esthetic respect, the ox. The LXX. have μόσχος, Ezek. i. 10, for 
W;% also Ezek. xxi. 87:4 Lev. xxii. 23. But they render thus also the 
words 15,5 73376 and 123.7 By μόσχος, therefore, only some animal of that 
class is designated; the more precise determination is given by the context. 
— The third ζῶον has τὸ πρόσωπον ὃ ἀνθρώπους In Ezekiel the chief form of 
the cherubim is human; this has been adopted also by Vitr. and Hengstenb. 
for the Apoc.® Qn the contrary, Beng. infers from the words ἔχ. τ. πρόσωπον, 
«.7.a.: “So it did not have in other respects the form of a man.” Ebrard is 
right in being contented with not knowing more than is said in the text. 
In the third being, however, the human face is characteristic; just as in the 
eagle, to which the fourth being is like, not so much the form in itself, as 
the flying, is significant, and therefore marked. 

Ver. 8. The four beings, having each six wings,® are all around and 
within full of eyes. Concerning the composition ὃν καθ᾽. ἕν, cf. Mark xiv. 
19; John vill. 9; Rom. xii. 15; Winer, p. 234. Concerning the distribu- 
tive ἀνά, cf. John ii. 6; Winer, p. 872. — The κυκλόθεν belongs not to what 
precedes,’ but with ἔσωθεν to γέμουσιν. Yet the κυκλόθεν is not equivalent to 
the ἔμπροσθεν, ver. 6, so that the ἔσωθεν corresponds to the émodev; 11 but rather 


the κυκλόθεν properly comprises already both of those statements, while only — 


with reference to the wings mentioned is it still expressly remarked that 
“within,” i e., on the inner side of the wings, under them — not only round 
about the entire outside of the body («v«A.) —all is full of eyes.!2 It results 
also from this determination of κυκλ. and ἔσωθεν, that the declaration yep, 
. ὀφθαλμ. is repeated, because this is to be extended particularly 18 to the wings. 
At the same time the adding of what follows, καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν — ἐρχόμενος, reveals 
. the meaning first of the fulness of eyes, and then of the four beings in 
general. Ceaselessly, day and night, they exclaim, “ Holy,” etc. — The masc. 
λέγοντες, in the same loose way as ver. 1.— The qy. x. vuxr. can in no way 


1 Ch. i. 10. 4 LXX., xxii. 1. 5 Exod. xxix. 10. 
2 Cf. E. Riehm, De Natura et Notione 6 Exod. xxxii. 4. 
Symbolica Cheruborum, Bas. et Ludov., 1864, 7 Gen. xii. 16. 
Ρ- 23. Cf. also Stud. u. Krit., 1871, Ὁ. 399 sq.; 8 ws. See Critical Remarks. 
Laimmert, D. Cherubim der H. Schrift., Jahrb. 9 Cf.v.8, xix. 4, where the beasts fall down, 


f. Deutsche Theologie, Gotha, 1867, p. 587 sq., ““ which cannot be thought of if two of them 
609 sq.; Τῷ. Seeburg, Die Sage von den Greifen were four-footed.” 
bei den Alten; St. 1: Ueber d. Ursprung der 10 Luther. 


Sage und ihre Verbreitung im Oriente, Gott- 11 « Within, towards the throne.” 
inger Inaugural-Dissertat. (1867), pp. 7, 32 sq. 12 Ziill., De Wette. 
3 Ezek. i. 7, as it refers to the feet of the 13 De Wette. 


cherubim, does not belong here. 14 Of. Ezek. x. 12. 


CHAP. IV. 8. 199 
suggest that at the throne of God there is no change of day and night, and 
still less dare the explanation be made: “Though there be on earth, here 
or there, day or night.”!— The uninterrupted hymn of praise of the four 
beings sounds like that of the seraphim in Isa. vi. 8; but since, instead of 
the close found there (πλήρης πᾶσα 7 γῆς τῆς δόξης αὑτοῦ), it is said here ὁ ἢν καὶ ὁ 
ὧν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, there is found ? in the praise of these four beings a partic- 
ular factor, which already in 1. 8 sounds forth like a keynote in a judgment 
of God which is highly significant to the whole. The thrice holy Lord God, 
at the same time, is also the Eternal One who is to come. These words 
of praise from the mouth of the four beings agree perfectly with the mani- 
festation of the Enthroned One,’ as this itself agrees with his own words; 4 
and in all the living divine foundation of the entire Apocalyptic prophecy is 
indicated, because God ‘‘ comes ” —in a personal way, as the prophet says — 
as surely as he is the Holy, Almighty, Eternal One, endowed with com- 
plete living energy. — Only now can the question be answered, as to what 
these beings are, and what their special characteristics signify. Undoubt- 
edly these four ζῶα ὅ are not actual beasts who serve only to support the 
throne of God, as in Persian and Indian sculptures massive forms of beasts 
are seen supporting a throne;® for ζῶον is not θηρίον, and concerning the 
four beings as supporting the throne, the text does not say a word. — Almost 
all the explanations of older times depend upon mere surmises, as, that the 
four beings are meant to designate: the Four Evangelists, and that, too, so 
that, according to Augustine,’ the lion represents Matthew, the man Mark, 
the ox Luke, and the eagle John; 9 the four cardinal virtues ; 1° the four mys- 
teries of faith, viz., Christ’s incarnation, passion, resurrection, ascension ; 1} 
the four patriarchal churches ; 153 the four apostles or apostolic men, who were 
then at Jerusalem as standard-bearers of Christ’s camp; all the doctors of 
the Church,!* etc. It is further a perversion to regard the four beings as_ 
angels, from whom they are expressly distinguished in v. 8, 11], vii. 11.45 
According to their form, they are essentially identical with the cherubim of 
the O. T.; so they have also their symbolical meaning. The question is 


1 Beng. 

2 As it corresponds with the pragmatic rela- 
tion of the entire presentation, ch. iv. [and v.], 
to the entire contents of the Apoc. 

3 Ver. 2 sqq. 

41. 8. 

5 ΡΤ, Ezek. i. Of. especially ver. 20, 
where all four ΓῚ ΤΊ are designated as one 
ΓΤ; here the LXX., incorrectly, ζωή. 

6 Eichh., Ew. 

7 Wis. vii. 20. 

8 De Cons. Evang., 16. 

9 Cf. Victor, Primas, Beda, Andr. Even 
Ebrard attributes some truth to such forced 
interpretation. 

10 Andr., Areth. 

11 Aretius after Augustine, Anshbertus. 

12 N.de Lyra: Jerusalem (where the church 
began, is the jirst beast, Acts v. 29 furnishing 


an example of its lion-like spirit), Antioch, 
Alexandria, and Constantinople. The six 
wings are the natural law, the Mosaic law, the 
oracles of the prophets, the gospel of counsels, 
the doctrine of the apostles, the statutes of 
general councils. The station of the Romish 
Church, which is naturally already, in N. de 
Lyra, the head of all, C. a Lap. describes by 
adding ‘‘ that the throne of God is the cathe- 
dra Romana, on which sits the vicar of 
Christ.”’ 

13 Grot., who regards them as Peter, James, 
Matthew, and Paul; the ‘‘ eyes” are colors, 
and designate the multiform gifts of God. 

14 The doctors of theology. Calov.; Cf. 
Vitr., etc. 

15 Cf. Vitr. and Hengstenb., vs. Laun., C.a 
Lap., Beng., etc. 


200 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


whether they represent powers of God employed in the creation,} or creation 
itself.2 The former interpretation is carried to such extent by Ebrard, that 
the lion is regarded as designating the consuming and destroying, the bul- 
lock the nourishing, man the thinking and caring, and the eagle, which soars 
victoriously above all, the preserving and rejuvenating power in nature. 
This is indeed ingenious, but is forced. It is in itself peculiar, and entirely 
unbiblical, to form the powers of God into definite symbolical beings, and 
the idea is entirely inadmissible, to regard powers so formed as proclaiming 
the praise of God: but, on the other hand, it is perfectly natural for the 
works to proclaim the praise of the Creator, and for these, especially the 
entire living creation, to be represerited by definite, concrete forms. The 
creatures at the basis of the O. T. cherubic forms most simply offer them- 
selves as such representatives of the entire living creation. The correct 
point of view is already stated in the rabbinical sentence:4 “ There are four 
holding the chief place in the world, — among creatures, man; among birds, 
the eagle; among cattle, the ox; among beasts, the lion.” That these four 
are intended to represent the entire living creation, is indicated by the signifi- 
cant number four itself;5 and to object against it, that besides the fish, etc., 
are not represented, is pointless. Entirely irrelevant, however, to the proper 
meaning of the symbol, is the succession of lion, ox, etc., which John, after 
remodelling in general the Ezekiel cherubic forms, unintentionally changed ; 
the idea also is arbitrary, that the four beings in John, just as in Ezekiel, 
must have had altogether human bodies, since man is exalted above other 
creatures.?. This allusion is introduced here without sufficient reason, as the 
subject has to do simply with the entirety of the living creation as such. 
Incorrect, besides, is the interpretation of the eyes, wherewith the four 
beings are covered, by saying that the entire living creation is “spiritual- 
ized,” 8 which follows at least from v. 6. The context itself shows, on the 
other hand, that the eyes are to be regarded as signs of the constant wake- 
fulness day and night, belonging to the ceaseless praise of God.® Finally, 
the six wings which John has derived for his beings from the six seraphim 
(Isa. vi.), we cannot well understand here otherwise than as there. ‘They 
designate not the collective significance of the four beings,!° but serve as a 
figurative representation of the unconditionally dependent and ministerial 
relation in which the creature stands, and is recognized as standing, to its 
Creator. Thus Bengel:1! “So that with two they covered their faces, with 
two their feet, and with two flew: whereby then the three chief virtues were 
indicated, viz., reverence or respect, as they do not boldly look; humility, as 
they hide themselves before that brilliancy ; and obedience, to execute com- 
mands.” — The essential idea delineated in the images of the ζῶα (cherubim) 


rest must be content with the representation 
of their faces’? (Hengstenb.). 


1 Ebrard, ete. 
2 Herder, De Wette, Rinck, Hengstenb. 


3 Cf. Ps. xix. 2 sqq., ciii. 22, exlviii. 


4 Schemoth, Rabba 23, fol. 122, 4, Ὁ. 
Schéttg. Cf. also Beng. 
5 Beng., Hengstenb. 6 Ebrard. 


7 “The human type must preponderate in 
the personification of every thing living; the 


8 Hengstenb. 
9 De Wette. Cf. Rinck, etc. 

10 Rinck, who mentions that the entire num- 
ber of wings, four times six, is equal the 
number of elders. 

11 Cf. also Hengstenb. 


CHAP. IV. 9-11. 201 
may be expressed in words as Ps. ciii. 22: “All the works of God (in all 
places),” —as they, at least with respect to earthly living creatures, are 
represented in the beings, and that, too, four beings, —are to “praise God 
in all places of his dominion.” For, that he, as unconditioned Lord of his 
creatures, is honored with all humility and obedience, is seen in that they 
hide themselves, and are ready to serve his will. Yet there is also placed in 
the mouth of the representatives of the ereatures an express ascription of 
praise to the holy, almighty Lord, and that, too, as the innumerable, ever- 
wakeful eyes show, one that is perpetual (ver. 8). [See Note XLIV., p. 203.] 

Vv. 9-11. The ascription of praise to God by the representatives of the 
creation, viz., the four beasts, is joined by that of the twenty-four elders, 
the representatives of redeemed humanity ;1 yet here the praise of the elders 
(ver. 11) refers not to redemption itself, — which first occurs in v. 9 sq.,— 
but to the power and glory of God revealed in creation, so that the words of 
the elders stand in beautiful harmony with the praise of the four beings, as 
well as with the significance of the entire vision; of course not without the 
relation expressly indicated in ver. 8, and lying at the basis, that Almighty 
God, who has made the beginning of all things, will also bring them to a 
completion. 

Ver. 9. ὅταν δώσουσι. The fut., instead of the regular sub.,? does not 
present a conception that is strictly future,? but has, like the Heb. imperfect, 
the force of a frequentative: “when, as often as.” 3 ---- δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν. Viz., 
the worshipful acknowledgment of the glory and honor ® belonging to the 
Lord ;® while by καὶ εὐχαριστίαν is designated immediately, and without 
metonymy, the thanksgiving’? rendered by the creature. — τῳ καθημένῳ ---- 
So God calls the enthroned God very similarly as the four beasts 
praise him, and in the same respect. Hence, also on cemore in ver. 10, 
the same designation of God, comprising the reason for the praise, and the 
ground of all hope and prophecy. — On ver. 10, cf. v. 8, xix.4. The casting- 
down of the crowns is, together with the falling down and worshipping, the 
sign of humiliation before the King and Lord, in whose presence no creature 
whatever has any glory or honor of its own.® 

Ver. 11. Not without significance, the elders who, as representatives 
of the redeemed, stand in a still closer relation to their Lord and God 
than the four beings, address the Enthroned One: ὁ κυρ. καὶ 6 θεὸς ἡμῶν.ϑ 
— ἄξιος ei λαβεῖν. Cf. ν. 12. That God not only when he is worshipped, but 
also when he exterminates his enemies, receives glory,!° does not belong 
here. — τὴν δος. x.7 2., the elders say, because in replying they look back in 
a certain respect to ver. 8.11— καὶ τὴν δύναμι. While the representatives 


αἰώνων. 


1 Cf. De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 
2 Winer, p. 289 sq. 
3 From now, and to all the future. Cf. vii. 


5 Cf. Ps. xxix. 1, xcvi. 7. Hengstenb., etc. 
6 Cf. i. 6. 
7 Hengstenb. 


15 sq. It is not so earlier, because only since 
the work of redemption is in progress, and 
the victory of Christ in development, are the 
twenty-four elders in this position and occupa- 
tion. De Wette; cf. Stern. 

4 Vitr., Beng., Hengstenb., Ebrard, etc. 


8 Cf. Tacit., Annal., xv. 29: “Τὸ which 
(statue of Nero) Tiridates, having advanced, 
cast before the image the diadem removed from 
his head.” 

9 See Critical Notes. 


10 Beng. Cf. xi. 17. 11 Beng. 


202 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


of even creation are right in offering thanks (ver. 8), especially suitable 
in the mouth of the elders, who although naturally also belonging to crea- 
tion, yet with a certain objectivity regard the work of creation (ὅτι od ἔκτισας, 
x.7.4.), is the thankful acknowledgment of the power of the Creator revealed 
therein.! — καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν. The Vulg., correctly: “On account.of 
thy will.” Luther, incorrectly : “Through thy will.” Concerning διὰ with 
the accus. to designate the ground, not the means, cf. John vi. 57; Winer, p. 
372. — In regard to ἧσαν, the reference may be considered impossible: “In 
thy disposition from eternity, before they were created ;”? and just as little 
dare the ἐκτίσθησαν be applied to regeneration through Christ,? if the ἧσαν be 
correctly referred to the creation. Bengel’s explanation of the joa: “ All 
things were, from the creation to the time of this ascription of praise, and 
still henceforth. Hereby the preservation of all created things is praised,” is 
also artificial; while his explanation of ἐκτίσθησαν : “Since thou hast created 
all things, they remain as long as thou wilt have them,” is utterly incorrect. 
The ἧσαν is taken mostly 4 as synonymous with ἐκτίσθησαν ; but ἧσαν is not 
equivalent to ἐγένοντο or ἐγενήθησαν. On the contrary, after the divine work 
of creation is mentioned (ἔκτισας), the idea recurs to the same point with 
vivid clearness: as all things were, which before were not. The καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν 
is, then, not synonymous with the ἧσαν, but presents expressly the precise. 
fact upon which the ἧσαν depends: “they were created.” Thus the lauded 
work of the Creator (σὺ ἔκτισας) is made manifest even to the creatures by the 
idea in its two modifications of the ἧσαν and ἐκτίσθησαν. 


ΝΟΤΕΒ BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XLII. Ver. 4. εἴκοσι τέσσαρας πρεσβυτέρους. 


Gebhardt, however (p. 48), urges against this view advocated by Diisterdieck, 
‘the fact, that, on the gates of the New Jerusalem, the names of the twelve 
tribes —the names of the patriarchs — are written; and, on its foundations, the 
names of the twelve apostles (xxi. 12, 14); but neither on the gates, nor on the 
foundation, do we find the two associated. It is entirely foreign to the thoughts 
of the seer, to conceive of the two side by side with each other. They are the 
same, but one as the type, the other the fulfilment. The song of Moses and 
the Lamb (xv. 3), which is quoted in favor of this interpretation, is neither a 
double song, nor is it sung by O. and N. T. believers; it is one, and ascends 
from the lips of conquerors in the Christian life.’”? He argues that the elders 
are not concrete realities, ‘‘ but, as the living creatures are a symbolical repre- 
sentation of the animated creation of God in general, according to its ideal, so 
are the elders a symbolical representation of the people of God, according to 
their ideal, or, in other words, of redeemed humanity.’’ Luthardt: ‘‘ Not pos- 
sibly the twelve patriarchs and the twelve apostles, or, in general, the repre- 
sentatives of the Church; for they are distinguished from believers, v. 10 
(according to the correct reading), vii. 9 sqq., 14, xi. 16 sqq.; and the glorified 


1 Cf. Rom. i. 20. 4 « They came into being:” De Wette. Cf. 
2 N. de Lyra. C. a Lap., Eichh., Herd., Hengstenb., Ebrard. 
3 Grot. 5 Ps. xxxiii. 9. 


} 


NOTES. 203 


as yet wear no crowns, but are expecting only the time of dominion (ii. 10-vi. 
9); but it is the heavenly council, composed of representatives of the people of 
God in heaven.” 


XLITI. Ver. 6. θάλασσα ὑαλίνη. 


Alford objects to our author’s identification of the ‘‘sea of glass’? with the 
“friver of water of life;’’ for ‘‘the whole vision there [xxii. 1] is quite distinct 
from this, and each one has its own propriety in detail. To identify the two is 
to confound them, nor does ch. xv. 2 at all justify this interpretation. There, 
as here, it is the purity, calmness, and majesty of God’s rule which are signified 
by the figure.’”? Luthardt, on the other hand, in substantial agreement with 
Diist.: ‘‘ The fulness of the divine life (cf. xxii. 1), which is nothing but peace 
and calm, in contrast with the stormy disquietude of the life of the world (xiii. 
1; Dan. vii. 2).” 


XLIV. Vv. 6-8. τέσσερα ζῷα. 


Cf. Cremer (Lexicon): ‘‘ Properly, a living creature, which also occurs else- 
where also in profane Greek, where ζῶον, a post-Homeric word, generally signi- 
fies living creature, and only in special instances a beast; θηρίον = animal, as 
embracing all living beings, must be retained in the Revelation, where four ζῶα 
are represented as being between God’s throne and those of the elders which 


- surround it, the description given of which (Rev. iv. 6-8) resembles that of the 
HVT in Ezek. i. 5 sqq.; the cherubim in Ezek. x. (cf. Ps. xviii. 1, xcix. 1, Ixxx. 


2; 1 Sam. iv. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 2; 2 Kings xix. 15). They are named living crea- 
tures here and in Ezek. i., on account of the life which is their main feature. 
They are usually the signs and tokens of majesty, of the sublime majesty of 
God, both in his covenant relation, and in his relation to the world (for the 
latter, see Ps. xcix. 1); and therefore it is that they are assigned so prominent a 
place, though no active part in the final scenes of sacred history (Rev. vi. 1-7). 
The appearance of four represents the concentration of all created life in this 
world, the original abode of which, Paradise, when life had fallen to sin and 
death, was given over to the cherubim. They do not, like the angels, fulfil the 
purposes of God in relation to men; they are distinct from the angels (Rev. v. 
11). Weare thus led to conclude that they materially represent the ideal pat- 
tern of the true relation of creation to its God.’? Oehler (O. T. Theology, 
p. 260): ‘‘It is the cherubim, as Schultz well expresses it, ‘which at one and 
the same time proclaim and veil his presence.’ The lion and the bull are, as is 
well known, symbols of power and strength; man and the eagle are symbols of 
wisdom and omniscience; the latter attribute is expressed also in the later form 
of the symbol by the multitude of eyes. The continual mobility of the ζῶα 
(Rev. iv. 8) signifies the never-resting quickness of the Divine operations; this 
is probably symbolized also by the wheels in Ezek. i. The number four is the 
signature of all-sidedness (towards the four quarters of heaven). Thus Jehovah 
is acknowledged as the God who rules the world on all sides in power, wisdom, 
and omniscience. Instead of natural powers working unconsciously, is placed 
the all-embracing, conscious activity of the living God.”’ 


204 THE REVELATION OF ST, JOHN. 


CHAPTER V. 


Ver. 1. ὄπισθεν, So, correctly, Elz., and the more modern edd. The toler- 
ably well authenticated reading ἔξωθεν (2, 3, 4, 6, al., Vulg., Ar., Copt., al., 
Andr., Areth.), which Beng. likewise regards as justified, is an interpretation. 
Conversely, Origen (in Lach.), with reference to the correct ὄπισθεν, has said, 
instead of ἔσωθεν: ἔμπροσθεν (Ezek. ii. 10). So also 8. — Ver. 2. Before φωνῇ, in 
the Elz. text, and according to A, δὲ, 2, 4, 6, 7, al., together with Beng., Lach., 
Tisch. [W. and H.], ἐν is to be placed. — The ἐστιν after τίς (Elz.), which is absent 
in A, &, 10, 12, Orig., al., and, in some witnesses, stands only after ἄξιος, is an 
interpolation, and to be deleted (Beng., Treg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], etc.). 
— Ver. 4. Instead of πολλά (Elz.), read πολύ, according to δὲ, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, al., 
Andr. (Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — The addition καὶ ἀναγνῶναι after 
ἀνοῖξαι (Elz.) is, after decisive witnesses, rejected already by Beng., Griesb., etc. — 
Ver. 5. ὁ ἐκ τ. φυλ, So A, 2, 4, 6, al., Bengel, Griesb., the more recent. Incor- 
rectly, Elz.: ὁ ὦν. Perhaps the art. also is to be deleted (δ). — The variation 
ὁ ἀνοΐγων (B, 2, 4, 6, 8, al., Areth.) is improperly preferred (Matth., Tisch., 1859) 
to the reading ἀνοῖξαι (A, δὲ, al., Lach.), as it is manifestly a modification. — 
The λῦσαι before τὰς é. σφ. (Elz.) is certainly false, notwithstanding ὃ. — Ver. 6. 
After καὶ εἶδον, the Elz. text has introduced (cf. vi. 5, 8, xiv. 1, 14) καὶ ἰδού, 
against A, &, 2,4,6,al. The question, however, is whether, with Beng., Tisch., 
etc., to delete both words, or, with Lach. (according to A: καὶ εἶδον, καὶ; cf. vi. 
12, v. 11, vi. 1, viii. 13), only the dod. — of εἰσιν τὰ ἑπτὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πνεύματα τὰ ἀπεσ- 
taduéva, So Elz. The of is here correctly (Beng., Lach., Tisch., 1859 [W. and 
H.]) according to δὲ, A; the 4, on the other hand (2, 3, 4, al., Areth., ed. Comp., 
Matth., Tisch., 1854), is, like the isolated ἅτινα (in Matth.), a correction. The 
ἑπτὰ before πνεύματα Tov θεοῦ, for this is the right order of words (A, &, Beng., 
Matth., Lach., Tisch.), is wanting in A, 12, and may be an interpolation (cf. i. 
4, iv. 5); but probably it is here (δ) just as, in iv. 5., Tisch. has it correctly in 
the text. Instead of ἀπεσταλμένα (δ, Beng., Tisch. [X.), before which the art. 
only is inserted, Lach. reads ἀπεσταλμένοι according to A, Matth.; Tisch.: ἀποσ- 
reAdoueva according to B and a considerable number of minusc. Yet the latter 
reading appears to be a modification, while the form ἀπεσταλμένοι is scarcely 
allowable in the language of the Apoc., and appears to be an error occasioned 
by the preceding o/, — Ver. 7. The interpretation τὸ βιβλίον after εἴληφεν (Elz., 
Beng.), also placed at the close of the verse (ed. Compl., al.), is lacking in A, 
ἐξ, 2, 4, 6, al., Vulg. (Griesb., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — Ver. 8. 
Instead of κιθάρας (Elz.), read, according to A, δὲ, 2, 4, 6, al., Copt., al., κιθάραν 
(Beng., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — Vv. 9, 10. Elz.: ἠγόρασας τῷ θεῷ 
ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου ἐκ mao, φυλ. ---- καὶ ἐποίησας ἡμᾶς TO θεῷ ἡμῶν βασιλεῖς καὶ ἱερεῖς 
καὶ βασιλεύσομεν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Incorrect here is: First, the ἡμᾶς, ver. 9 (8), which 
is wanting in A, Areth. (rejected already by Mill, Prol., 1111, Lach., Tisch.), 
which was inserted (cf. i. 6); and which Primas, Vulg., have before God (and 
that, too, that with him ‘‘ they shall reign over them,’’ ver. 10), because a more 


CHAP. V. 1. 205 
accurate determination of the object is wished than is found in the words ἐκ 
πασ. φυλ., K.7.A. Secondly, the ἡμᾶς (ver. 10), for which, according to A, δὲ, 2, 4, 
al., Syr., Vulg. (var. nos), Copt., Ar., Aeth., Andr., ed. Compl., etc., αὐτοὺς is 
to be written (Mill, 1. c., Matth., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). 
Probably false is, thirdly, the τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν (8) lacking in A (Tisch.; retained by 
Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]). Instead of the correction βασιλεῖς, read, 
according to A, δὲ, Vulg., al., βασιλείαν (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]); cf. i. 6. 
Finally, read βασιλεύουσιν, according to A, 7, 8, 9, al., Syr., ed. Compl. (Mill, 
l. c., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). Because objection was made to the 
pres., βασιλεύσουσιν was written (δὲ, 2, 4, 5, 6, Cypr., Vulg., Beng., Griesb.), and 
then, corresponding to the introduced ἡμᾶς: βασιλεύσομεν. --- Ver. 12. “Agiov. It 
is worthy of note, that A has ἄξιος (so ed. Erasm. I., Ald.), defended by Bengel 
in his Gnomon, and received by Tisch., 1859, [IX.— Ver. 13. The ἐστὶν after ὃ 
(Elz., Beng.) is without authenticity; it belongs after θαλάσσης, and that, too, 
without the @ preceding in the rec. So according to A, 2, 4, 6, al., Verss.; 
already Matth.; also Tisch., 1854 [W. and H.], who, however, in 1859, has 
received the @ (B, 8].). δὲ: τὸ ἐν τ΄ obp. — καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ θαλ. καὶ τὰ ἐν avt, — Instead 
of the rec., τὰ ἐν avr. πάντα ἤκουσα λέγοντας, Lach. has written, in accordance 
with A, τὰ ἐν air, πάντα 7K, λέγοντα; Matth., Beng., Tisch., in accordance with 
2, 4, 7, al., τὰ ἐν avrow, πάντας ἤκ. λέγοντας. In favor of the latter reading is its 
greater difficulty when compared with that of Cod. A. & interprets: κ. τὰ ἐν 
αὐτ. πάντα, Kal HK. λέγοντας. 


Amidst the songs of praise of the heavenly ones, the Lamb receives from 
the hand of God the book to be opened by him, in which stands written 
“what must come to pass ” (cf. iv. 1). 

Ver. 1. ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιὰν designates not that the book lies “on the right 
side of the Enthroned One,” and therefore on the throne, as Ebrard thinks, 
who lays stress upon the fact as to how this peaceful, apparently useless, 
lying is consistent with its being closed; for this idea, which is of course 
in itself, and according to the wording, possible, is in conflict with ver. 7, as 
there the ἐκ τῆς δεξιᾶς, x.7.2., because of its express reference to the ἐπὶ τὴν 
δεξιὰν, ver. 1, does not well admit of the intermediate supposition that the 
Enthroned One has first taken the book into his right hand. But of course 
ἐπὶ τὴν δεξ. does not directly mean, “ in the right hand,” 1 for which no appeal 
can be made to xvii. 8, xx. 1: on the contrary, the correct idea is derived 
especially from xx. 1, that the Enthroned One holds the book on his (open) 
hand, offering it, and likewise waiting whether any one will be found worthy 
to take and open it.2— The βιβλίον thus visible (καὶ εἶδον) according to its 
exterior, even to John, is to be regarded, undoubtedly, a M27, as in Ezek. 
11. 9 sq., a book-roll,? which form alone is adapted to its present holy use. 
Like the book of Ezekiel, this was also an émo@6ypadov,* viz., written not 


1 Vulg., N. de Lyra, Luther, Vitr.; cf. also 
Hengstenb. 

2 Beng. Cf. also De Wette. 

3 E. Huschke (Das Buch mit sieben Siegeln 
in d. Off., Leipz. ἃ. Dresd., 1860) understands 
a document folded together, and sealed out- 
wardly in the Roman way by seven witnesses, 


concerning the O. and N. T. covenant of God 
with man. But this strange statement is elab- 
orated in its details neither without great arti- 
ficiaJness nor many exegetical errors. Ewald 
and others have declared themselves against it. 

4 Lucian, Vit. Auction. 9; Plin., L. IL, 
ep. 5. 


206 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
only ἔσωθεν, i.e., within, on the surface turned inwardly about the staff, but 
also ὄπισθεν, i.e., on the side turned outwards in unrolling, the ordinarily 
unwritten side of the parchment. Thus the exceedingly rich contents of 
the book are indicated, completely comprising 2 the Divine decrees concerning 
the future (ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι; iv. 1); while the sevenfold sealing ὃ shows that these 
Divine decrees are a deep, hidden mystery, which can be beheld only by an 
ἀποκάλυψις Whose mediator is only the Lamb, since it is his part to open the 
seals. — The idea of the book in which the decrees of the Divine govern- 
ment appear written occurs already in Ps. exxxix. 16; οἵ. also Exod. xxxii. 
82; Rev. iii. 5, xx. 12. It is only by awkward conjectures that the opinion 

is obtained, that the βιβλίον is the O. T.® or the entire Holy Scriptures, — 
possibly the N. T. within, and the O. T. without.® Incorrect also is Wet- 
stein: “ The book of divorce from God, written against the Jewish nation, is 
represented,” — a view contradicting every feature both of the more imme- 
diate and more remote context. Inapplicable also Schottgen, with whom 

Hengstenb. agrees: “The book contains the sentence designed against the 
enemies of the Church.” It is true that this passage, considered by itself, 
does not yet permit us to recognize the contents and meaning of the book in 
its details;7 yet it must be explained here partially from the meaning of 
chs. iv. and v., partly from the organism of the entire Apocalypse from ch. 
vi., and partly from the meaning of viii. 1, that the book sealed with seven 
seals could have contained not only what is written from vi. 1 to viii. 1, 
called by Hengstenb. the group of seals,§ because Hengstenb. incorrectly 
affirms that in the entire scene, chs. iv. and v., nothing else than judgments 
upon enemies is to be expected, as such are to be represented in the com- 
pletely closed group of seals in viii. 1. Rather the appearance of the en- 
throned God, and the entire scene, chs. iv., v., afford the guaranty that not 
only enemies are judged, but also friends are blessed, just as both necessa- 
rily belong together. To this the consideration must be added, that, accord- 
ing to the clear plan of the Apoc. itself, the so-called group of seals is by no 
means closed with viii. 1,9 nor even with xi. 19,19 since from the seventh seal 
a further development proceeds to the end of the Apoc.," so that the con- 
tents of the seventh seal are presented completely only at the end of the 
book; consequently the contents of this book comprised in seven seals, which 
is opened by the Lamb, appear to be repeated in the succeeding Apoc. from 
ch. vi. on,!2 as John himself 18 has proclaimed his entire prophetic writing as 
a revelation communicated to him through Christ. The plain speech, i. 1 
and iv. 1, clearly makes known the essential significance in ch. v. —It has 
been found difficult to assign a place in the book-roll to the seven seals. 


1 4 tergo, ‘on the back,” Juv., Sat. I. 6. 
In aversa charta, *‘ on the turned leaf,’’ Mart. 
Viii. 22. 

2 Cf. De Wette, Stern, etc. 

8. ΟἿ; x4, xxir. 10: Tsay xxix. 11 Dan. xii: 
4,9. 

Oo Os Oe 

5 Victorin. 

6 Primas, Bega, Zeger. 


7 Ebrard. 

8 Alcas. considers in the same sense the 
section chs. vi.-xi. 

9 Hengstenb. 

10 Alcas. 

11 Cf. Introduction, sec. 1. ; 

12 Cf, N. de Lyra, C. ἃ Lap., Beng., De 
Wette, Klief., etc. 

Ww ji.1. 


CHAP. V. 2, 4. 207 


Grot. (who altogether preposterously combines the καὶ ὄπισθεν with κατεσφραγ.), 
Vitr., Wolf,! were of the opinion that the entire book consisted of seven 
leaves, each with a seal; C. a Lap., De Wette, etc., thought that attached 
to the book as rolled up were a number of strings, and on them the seven 
seals were fastened, so that thus each seal could be opened seven times, and 
the part of the book that had been closed by the same could be read, but 
at the same time the seals outwardly attached to the volume were visible to 
John. But all these artificial hypotheses are unnecessary; and the most 
natural idea, that the seals fastened the end of the leaves rolled about the 
staff, and thus hindered the unrolling or opening of the book, is without 
difficulty, provided it be only considered that it does not belong at all to the 
opening of the seals that a part of the book be unrolled and read, but rather 
that — according to the incomparably more forcible and better view — the 
contents of the book come forth from the loosed seal portrayed in plastic sym- 
bols. The revelation concerning the future, described in the book of God, is 
given to the prophet, as he gazes, in significative images which represent the 
contents of the book; but there is no reading from the book to him. This 
mode of presentation, so completely harmonizing with the artistic energy of 
the writer of the Apoc., has been ‘misunderstood especially by De Wette, as 
he attempts to explain the circumstance that none other than the Lamb, 
i.e., Christ, can open the book, by’ affirming that “with the opening of the 
book of fate, a sort of fulfilment is combined,” viz., the preparatory carrying- 
out of the Divine decrees in heavenly outlines, as held by the rabbins.? The 
subject at the loosing of the seals, and the opening of the book, is nothing 
else than a revelation that is to be given John.? 

Ver. 2 sqq. ἰσχυρὸν. The adjective* is by no means without meaning ;° 
but does not, however, designate an angel of higher rank,® having reference 
to the κηρύσσ. ἐν φωνῇ μεγὰᾶλῃ, aS x. 1,3. The angel must have great power, 
because with his call he is to penetrate all regions of the creation.’ — ἄξιος. 
As John i. 27, where, however, not the inf., but iva, follows. Cf. also ἑκανός, 
Matt. viii. 8. The “ worthiness” is the inner, ethical presupposition of the 
“being able,” ver. 3. — ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον καὶ λῦσαι τὰς copay. ait. A hysteron 
proteron.§ — ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς, ver. ὃ. Incorrectly, Grot.: “In the sea.” It 
designates ® the entire sphere of creation, according to its three great re- 
gions.!° By ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς is meant 11 Hades,}? as the place, not of demons,}8 
to think of which here is very strange, but of departed souls. — βλέπειν is not 
“ by reading to understand,” 14 but designates the seeing, following the open- 
ing of the book, therefore the looking in, the reading, of the same.15 

Ver. 4. καὶ ἐγώ ἔκλαιον πολύ. This expressly emphasizes what.John on his 


1 Cf. also Ew. 7 Vitr., Beng., Hengstenb., Ebrard, Ew. ii. 
2 Maimonid., More Nevoch., ii. 6: ‘*God 8 De Wette. 
does nothing until he has seen it in the family 9 Cf. ver. 13; Phil. ii. 10. 
above,’”’ in Wetst. on iv. 1. 10 Beng. 
3 Cf. also Hengstenb., Ebrard. 11 Otherwise than Exod. xx. 4. 
4 Cf. Ps. ciii. 20. 12 Ebrard. 
5 « A mere ornamental epithet,’ Eichh. 13 Cf, Vitr. 
6 C.a Lap., Ziill., Stern; cf. also De Wette. 14 Bretschneider. 


N. de Lyra’ Gabriel. 15 Ew., De Wette, etc. 


208 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
part (ἐγώ) did under the circumstances described in vv. 2,3. His violent 
weeping is caused simply by the fact that it seems as though the revelation 
ardently expected, and, according to iv. 1, to be hoped for, would not follow. 
“ John did not observe any one advancing at the call of the angel, to render 
this office for the Church.” So Vitr. correctly, who nevertheless, in viola- 
tion of the context, precipitately interprets? it chiefly of purely personal 
interests of John, which in no way are here “represented by the church.” ὃ 
—TInapplicable is the remark of Hengstenb.: “The weeping of John has 
his weakness of faith as its foundation. Without it, he would not have 
wept at the impossibility for all creatures to loose the seals, but would, on 
the contrary, have triumphed in Christ. Without it, also, the book of the 
future, according to all which the prophets of the O. T. and the Lord had» 
said, would not have been absolutely closed to him.” John was satisfied, 
rather, in all humility of faith, even though weeping, that, according to 
what he had just heard, the book must remain closed to him. The Lamb 
had not as yet entered to open the book. But the reference to the predic- 
tions of the O. T. prophets, and of the Lord himself, is inapposite; because, 
if the entire scene is not to be senseless, it treats of such revelations as had 
not as yet been made. The only objection against the weeping of John 
that could be raised from the context is, that after iv. 1 sqq., he need not 
at all have been anxious about being compelled to be without the revelation 
as to the contents of the sealed book; but even this objection can be raised 
only from the standpoint of a reflection which is here entirely out of place.® 
Ver. 5. One of the elders® stills the weeping of John, by showing him 
Christ as the one able to open the book. — The deictic ἰδού intensifies the 
pictorial vividness of the description. Corresponding to the ἰδού is the καὶ 
εἶδον, x.T.A., ver. 6; there John directs his look to the Lamb, to whom the 
elders had pointed him. — ἐνίκησεν. The explanation is divided into two 
parts. Grot.,7 Vitr., C. a Lap., Beng., Eichh., Heinr., Ew., etc., regarded ® 
the ἐνίκησεν in immediate combination with the ἀνοῖξαι, κιτ.λ., so that the 
latter appears as an object to the conception ἐνίκησεν Others, as N. de 
Lyra, Calov., Boss., Ebrard, Klief.,1° have, on the other hand, referred the 
ἐνίκησεν to the triumphantly completed work of redemption," so that then 


1 πολύ, Luke vii. 47. 

2 Cf. N. de Lyra, Beng., Ebrard, etc. 

8 Hengstenb. 

4 Cf. Acts i.7; Matt. xxiv. 36; Mark xiii. 
32. 

5 Against Klief., who does not hesitate to 
ascribe to John a harassing doubt as to 
whether, because of the unworthiness of 
creatures, the Divine ultimate purpose, at least 
with respect to God’s will of love, must re- 
main unaccomplished. 

6 The attempt has been made also to deter- 
mine who this elder is. Matthew is suggested, 
because in his Gospel (xxviii. 18) there is a 
declaration concerning the omnipotence of 
Christ. N. de Lyra prefers to understand 


Peter, who, however, had already met with a 
martyr’s death. 

7 * He has obtained that which you thought 
must he despaired of.” 

8 The older interpreters mostly, with a false 
parallel to ΤΙΣΙ (Ps. li. 6; LXX., νικᾶν). 

9 “ He has attained, prevailed in a struggle, 
to open,”’ etc. 

10 Cf. also De Wette, Hengstenb. 

11 N. de Lyra. ‘* Was victor in the resurrec- 
tion.’? Calov.: ‘Conquered the infernal lion.”’ 
Boss., Ebrard: ‘‘ Victory over sin, death, and 
the Devil.’? Soalso Hengstenb., who, however, 
at the same time confusedly falls into the first 
mode of exposition: ‘* Overcoming the difficul- 
ties which opposed the opening of the book.” 


CHAP. V. 6. 209 


the infinitive statement, ἀνοῖξαι, κ.τ.}., appears not in an objective relation 
to ἐνίκησεν, but as exegetical,! and the ἐνίκησεν as absolute. The latter con- 
ception is correct, because the former combination of the ἐνίκησεν with the 
inf. is not so much “a new and poetic mode,’’? as is contradicted by the 
mode of statement in the Apoc.,® and because not only the correlation of 
‘the designations of the victor, ὁ λέων, ὁ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς ᾿Ιοῦδα, ἡ ρίζα Δαυΐδ, but also 
the words, ver. 9, which may be regarded as an authentic interpretation of 
the mode of expression in ver. 5, are decisive for the second of the explana- 
tions previously mentioned. “The Lion of the tribe of Judah” is Christ,4 
because in his bodily descent from Judah, as the true Messiah promised of 
old, he had victoriously fought. [See Note XLV., p. 216.] In the same 
sense, the designation ἡ ῥίζα Aavid® represents him as a sprout growing from 
the root of David with fresh, triumphant power. Thus N. de Lyra, C. a 
Lap., Grot., Eichh., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, etc., correctly ex- 
plain, recognizing the slight metonymy; and Calov. and others, incorrectly, 
because against the decisive fundamental passage: “Christ, according to his 
divine nature, is represented as the foundation and source of David him- 
self.” The Christian fundamental view is presented, which not only in 
the same words, but also in the same tense (évixyoa, aor.), is expressed 
already in iii. 21, and is repeated immediately afterwards in ver. 9,7 only in 
another statement or explanation; viz., that, just because Christ has strug- 
gled and conquered in earthly humility,’ he is worthy to open the sealed 
book. It especially harmonizes with this view, that one of the elders, there- 
fore one of those who have in themselves experienced the fruit of Christ’s 
victory, and with complete clearness know the entire meaning of this vic- 
tory, directs the weeping John to the Lion of the tribe of Judah; not as 
though this elder had observed that Christ meanwhile had besought the 
enthroned God for permission to open the book, and had obtained it,® but 
because the elder has the blessed assurance that the exalted Christ, since he 
is Lord and King of his-kingdom, is also the Mediator of all revelation. 
Ver. 6. ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρονοῦ --- καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. Incorrectly, Ebrard: 
“The Lamb appears in the midst of the throne, so as at the same time to sit in 
the centre of the four living beings, and in the centre of the twenty-four 
elders sitting around without, forming a more remote concentric circle,” —a 
truly monstrous idea, —the Lamb sitting 19 in the midst of the throne. The 
double ἐν μέσῳ designates, in the Heb. way,1! the two limits between which 
the Lamb stands,!? viz., in the space whose centre, the throne, is beside the 
four beings, and which is bounded externally by the circle 13 of the elders. 
Yet we must not necessarily understand that the Lamb stood on the crystal 


1 Cf. Winer, p. 298 sq. 2 Ew. ® As Ew. i. takes it, falling into an error 
8 ii. 7, 11, 17, ete.; especially iii. 21. contrary to both the word and sense of the 
4 According to Gen. xlix. 9. text. 
5 From Isa. xi. 10. Cf. ver. 1. 10 ἐστηκός: which Alcas., just as correctly, 
6 Cf. also Vitr., Herd. translates by ‘‘lying.’’ 
7 Cf. already ver. 6. ΤΣ 125014: par ya. LXX.: 
8 Because as the slain Lamb he has wrought ἀναμέσον -- καὶ ἀναμέσον. 

redemption, ver. 13. Cf. Phil. ii. 8 sq.; Isa. 12 Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb. 


111, 18 Cf. iv. 4. 


210 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

568,1 as De Wette does, who, in accordance with his explanation of iv. 6, 
finds a parallel in Heb. ix. 24. Of the sea of glass, and the position of the 
Lamb with regard to it, there is nothing at all to be said here; as for the 
rest, we may point to vii. 17, xxii. 1, as against De Wette. — ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς 
ἐσφαγμένον. The diminutive form, which is in general peculiar to the Apoc.,? 
serves here to strengthen the contrast between the announced “ Lion,” and 
the form of “a little lamb” which is now presented. Entirely remote is the 
reference to the brief life of the Lord in comparison with the extreme age 
of the elders. Incorrect also is the remark that ἀρνίον, from the mase. ἀρήν, 
is used with respect to the flock that is to follow ; 4 for the diminutive, which 
is not at all from ἀμνός, is entirely without this exclusive designation of sex, 
and the context itself (ὡς éogayy.) bars the reference to the leading of a flock. 
— Great as in other respects is the contrast between the “ Lion” and “the 
little Lamb,” yet there is also a deep harmony of the two views; for as 
the struggles of the Lion presupposed in ver. 5, i.e:, his patient suffering and 
death, concur with the slaying of the Lamb, so also the victory of the Lion 
gained in conflict, which becomes manifest in the resurrection, is appropri- 
ated by the little Lamb, since it “stands as one slain.” The ἑστηκός clearly 
declares that it is living,® while it at the same time (ὡς ἐσφαγμένον) appears 
as one that had (previously) been led to the shambles and slain. The word 
σφάζειν, properly “to open the throat with a knife, so that the blood flows 
out,” designates pre-eminently the slaying in making a sacrifice,’ but also 
any other slaying,’ and any form of putting to death.® By ὡς the ἐσφαγμένον 
is not “ especially emphasized as significantly presented,” 1° as though equiv- 
alent to ὡς in passages like xvii. 12; Matt. vii. 29; John i. 14; Rom. xy. 15, 
where the reality of a relation in its normative or fundamental significance 
is marked, — for in this way, in the present passage, the absurd and actually 
false idea would result, that the Lamb stood as one slain, i.e., at that time 
dead; but the ὥς 11 serves rather to reconcile the opposition between the 
ἑστηκός and ἐσφαγμένον, as the Lamb standing (and therefore living) is repre- 
sented as “one slain,” i.e., as such an one whose still-visible scars show that 
- it has once been slain.!2 John, therefore, applies to the Lamb the very same 
that the Lord, in i. 18, says of himself. There is in this view no violation 
whatever of the laws of the plastic art.18 — The Lamb had a twofold emblem: 
κέρατα ἑπτὰ, the symbol of perfect power,!4 and ὀφθαλμοὺς ἑπτά, which is expressly 
interpreted οἵ εἰσι τὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπεσταλμένα εἰς πᾶσαν THY γῆν. The refer- 
7 Cf. Exod. xii. 6. 


1 ἵν. 6. 6 Grot., etc. 


2 v. 8, 12, 18, vi. 1, 16, vii. 9, 14, xii. 11, xiii. 
8, xvii. 14. Cf., on the other hand, John i. 29, 
86; 1 Pet.i.19; Acts viii. 32: ὁ ἀμνόςς. The 
expression τὰ ἀρνία μου, John xxi. 5, whereby 
Christ designates his believers — cf. Meyer on 
the passage—does not belong here, because 
used here in an especial way, upon the basis 
of Isa. liii. 7, to designate Christ himself. 
Against Hengstenb. 

8 Against Benge] and Hengstenb. 

4 Beng. 

© Cf. cxiv. 4,6; Jer. xi. 19; John xxi. 15. 


8 Isa. [11]. 7. 

9 Rev. xiii. 3, 8; 1 John iii. 12; cf. my com- 
mentary on the latter passage. 

10 Ebrard. 

11 N.de Lyra refers the “ tanquam occisum ”’ 
to the daily bloodless sacrifice in the mass. 

12 Cf, xiii. 3. Andr., C. a Lap., Grot., Vitr., 
Beng., Herd., Ew., De Wette, Stern, Heng- 
stenb. 

18 De Wette. 

14 Cf. xvii. 3 sqq.; Ps. cxii. 9, cxlviii. 14; 
1 Sam. ii. 10; Dan. vii. 20 Βα.» vili. 5 sqq. 


as | 


CHAP. V. 7. out 


ence of the spirits of God, symbolized by the seven eyes,} to the omniscience 
of the Lord,? is too limited. The correct interpretation is determined by 
the context itself (ἀπεσταλμένα). The (seven) spirits of God are also, here,® 
the potencies which in their independent reality are present with God, and 
by means of which he works on and in the world. That Christ has‘ these 
spirits (this Spirit) of God, is symbolized here by the seven eyes of the 
Lamb, just as before the throne of God (the Father) the same Spirit appears 
as seven lamps.5 This, moreover, in no way compels the conception, that 
the vision has changed after the manner of a dream, and now where the 
seven eyes of the Lamb are represented, the seven lamps have vanished,® as 
indeed the belonging of the Spirit to the Enthroned One, as also to the © 
Lamb, is intended to be symbolically represented. — Erroneous is the ex- 
planation of Beda: “The septiform spirit in Christ is because of the emi- 
nence of its power compared to horns, and because of the illumination of 
grace to eyes.”7 But if even grammatically it is not impossible for the oi, 
which introduces the explanatory sentence, to refer to ὀφθαλμούς and κέρατα, 
the annexed interpretation, of εἰσι τὰ πνεύμ., x.7.A., applies only to the ὀφθαλμούς, 
and not at the same time to the κέρατα. It would, of course, be in itself 
inconceivable,’ if one and the same thing were represented by two symbols, 
perhaps in two different connections: but here are two symbols, which 
throughout do not designate the same thing; for while by the “horns,” a 
symbol known already from the O. T., and therefore applied by John 
without any particular hint, the attribute of power is symbolized, the eyes, 
according to the express interpretation of the text, designate in no way an 
attribute of the Lamb, but the Spirit really present with God and the Lamb 
together (the Father and the Son), and belonging in like manner to them 
both, who is here indeed to be regarded according to the standard of the 
symbol (ὀφθαλμ.) pre-eminently as the One seeing through all things.? Be- 
cause Christ has the Spirit, he knows every thing, even things upon earth, 
whither the Spirit is sent, — the doings of his enemies, the state of his own 
people, etc. 

Ver. 7. Kal ἦλθε καὶ εἴληφε. The perf. has,!° as also elsewhere among 
those later,!1 the sense of the aor.,— which is the easier here because an aor. 
precedes. —The Lamb ‘‘ took ”’ it (the book) out of the hand of God offer- 
ing it.12_Ebrard wishes to translate it “ received,” because “ the active taking 
does not suit the Son’s position with respect to the Father.” But while of 
course it is self-evident that no one, not even the Lamb, can take the book 
if God do not give it, yet the idea of the active taking on the part of 
the Lamb lies more in the course of the entire connection, as it presents the 
glory of the Lamb eminent above all creatures, and not the possible subordi- 


4. Gf: 2. 421851, iy: 7 So also Beng., De Wette, etc.; only that 
2 Cf., especially, Vitr., who refers the these expositors, with less error, regarded the 
power to the opening, and the knowledge to eyes as a symbol of knowledge. 


the reading and understanding, of the book. 8 Against Ebrard. 
3 Cf. i. 4, iv. 5. 9 Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 10. 
# jii. 1. 10 Cf. viii. 5. 
5 iv. 5. 11 Winer, p. 253. 


6 Ebrard. 12 Cf. ver. 1. 


919 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


nation of the same to God. The Lamb can take the book for the reason 
indicated already in ver. 5,! but in no way because of having meanwhile re- 
ceived from God permission which had been previously asked.?_ To consider 
with Vitr. as to whether the Lamb also had hands, etc., is unnecessary and 
without point. 

Ver. 8. ὅτε ἔλαβεν (‘‘ when he had taken it).”® The aor. is to be understood 
just as in vi. 1, 3, etc.4 Simultaneousness ὅ would have been expressed by the 
impf.6 Naturally, upon the act of the Lamb, which displays the glory belong- 
ing exclusively to him, there follows the song of praise, in which the glory 
just evinced is celebrated. — As in ch. iv., the four beings, the representa- 
tives of the entire living creation, and the twenty-four elders, the repre- 
sentatives of redeemed humanity, have worshipped the enthroned God in 
alternate songs of praise, so here there sounds their united song of praise to 
the Lamb, before whom they together fall down in adoration ; for the Lamb 
shares in the divine glory of the Enthroned One.” This song of praise finds 
a response first in ver. 12, in the angelic hosts, and then, in ver. 18, is taken 
up by all creatures everywhere, and that, too, so that at the close a doxology, 
in a manner concentrated, sounds forth at the same time to the One sitting 
on the throne and to the Lamb, and finally dies away in the amens of the 
four beings who had begun the praise of the enthroned God (iv. 8); and, at 
_ the same time with the twenty-four elders, that of the Lamb (v. 9).— 
ἔχοντες ἕκαστος ---- ἁγίων belongs only to of πρεσβύτ. : for this is indicated, jirst, 
by the masc. form (ἔχοντες ἕκαστος) ; secondly, the unnaturalness of ascribing to 
beings as fashioned in iv. 7, harps and vials; and thirdly, the incongruence 
which would result if the representatives of the creation had the office of 
offering the prayers of saints. The latter is suitable only to elders. — The 
elders have each a harp, the instrument with which they accompany their 
song of praise,? and “ golden vials full of frankincense,” viz., as is self-evi- 
dent, each one a vial, so that we possibly are to think of a vial in the right 
hand, while the left holds the harp.1° The vials filled with frankincense 
have a symbolical meaning corresponding to the emblem of the harp: ai εἰσιν 
αἱ προσευχαὶ τῶν dyiwv. The αἱ may, by attraction, be referred to the θυμιαμά- 
των,11 yet the formally more simple reference to φιάλας may be adopted, as the 
vials are just such as are filled with incense. Concerning the symbolical 
meaning “its,” cf. viii. 3; Ps. exli.2; Ezek. viii.11. Arbitrarily and against 
the meaning of the context, Hengstenb. understands by the prayers symboli- 
cally offered only intercessory prayers, whose chief subject is the protection 
and perfection of the Church, and judgment upon enemies; while he regards 
the harps as referring to prayers of adoration and thanksgiving.!? — τῶν 
ἁγίων, i.e., of Christians.18 Cf. viii. 3, 4, xiii. 7, 10, xi. 18, xviii. 206. The 
misunderstanding of this as referring to saints already in heaven 16 is inap- 


1 Cf. ver. 9. 8 In other respects the λέγοντες, ver. 9, has 
2 Ew. i. a different relation. 

3 De Wette. ° 9 Of. xiv. 2 sqq., xv. 2; Ps. cxlvi. 7, cl. 3. 

4 Cf. Matt. vii. 28, ix. 25. 10 Vitr., Ebrard. 11 Vitr. 

5 («415 er nahm,’’ Luth. 12 Cf. De Wette, Ebrard, etc. 

6 1 Cor. xiii. 11. 13 De Wette, Ew. ii. 


7 Cf. ver. 18, xxii. 1. 14 Hengstenb.; cf. Beng. 


~ eae 


CHAP. V. 9. 213 


plicable for the reason that the idea that the prayers of the saints are offered 
to God by the elders! presupposes the fact that the saints themselves are 
not present with God. With this agrees the mode in which the elders, ver. 
9, speak of the saints. —The remark of C. a Lap.: “ Note here against 
Vigilantius, Luther, Calvin, and other Hagiomachoi, that the saints pray for 
us, and offer our prayers to God,” is, in other respects, entirely wrong: 
because, jirst, the “elders” are in no way identical with the saints who are 
meant; secondly, while, on the Lutheran side, it is not at all denied that the 
members of the Church triumphant pray for those of the Church militant 
[see Note XLVI., p. 217], there is no allusion whatever to the invocation 
of saints contended against on the Lutheran side; and, finally, it is entirely 
incorrect to regard the forms of the twenty-four elders included in the plan 
as real personages, and without any thing further to construct a dogmatical 
statement upon the act symbolically ascribed to them. Erroneous also is 
De Wette’s conjecture that John appears to know nothing of a mediatorial 
office of Christ. Of this, nothing can be expressly said in the present pas- 
sage, although of course the entire Christology of the Apoc. essentially in- 
cludes that fundamental Christian thought. 

Ver. 9. καὶ ddovoww, viz., they who have fallen down; i.e., the four beings 
and the twenty-four elders.?, Hengstenb. arbitrarily understands this: “That 
the elders come forward as the speakers of the chorus formed of them and 
the four beasts.” — ὠδην καινὴν. Cf. xiv. 3. Too indefinitely, N. de Lyra: 
“pertaining to the N. T.;” yet he has also the correct feeling that the new 
song refers to a new subject. Here this is not completed redemption,’ but 
as the succeeding song itself shows, and the express connection determines, 
the worthiness * of the Lamb to open the book,® acquired through the pain- 
ful work of redemption. [See Note XLVII., p.217.] λέγοντες introduces 
the song announced (ddove, dd. καιν.). Cf. iv. 1, 8. — dre ἐσφάγης. The Lamb 
himself is represented ὡς ἐσφαγμένον. In the entire statement presenting 
the ground (ὅτι éo9.) for the ἄξιος εἰ, «.7.2., the aorists ἐσφάγης, ἤγόρασας, ἐποίησας, 
are to be strictly observed: they refer to the definite fact that has once 
occurred, of the crucifying of the Lord (ἐσφάγης), and this one fact ὃ is de- 
scribed according to its effect: ἠγόρασας, x.7.A., and ἐποίησας. Incorrectly, Beng.: 
“And hast purchased us to be thy possession. This refers not to the redemp- 
tion itself, which occurred when the Lamb was slaughtered and his blood 
was sprinkled, but to its fruit, and refers, therefore, to those saints who have 
finished their course, and who have been bought from the earth, xiv. 3.” 
Bengel’s error is occasioned by the false reading ἡμὰς. — Incorrectly, Ewald: 
“ By his bloody death he redeemed them to God, delivering to them the doc- 
trine, following which they could emerge from the servitude of vices.” How 


1 Cf. Tob. xii. 2. that the revelation of the mysteries therein 
2 De Weite, ete. contained may be communicated to the seer. 
3 C. a Lap., Beng., ete. 5 Cf. Vitr., who, at the same time, thinks of 


4 In violation of the context, Klief.: The the new kind of song; Stern, Ebrard, Heng: 
reception and sealing of the book have to do stenb. 
with ‘‘ the actual final accomplishment of the 6 Cf. also ver. 5. 
divine purpose.’”? The subject here has to do 7 Cf. Ew. 8 Cf. i. 5 sqq. 
with the opening of the book only in order 9 See Critical Notes. 


214 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


completely the 7yépaca¢ concurs with the ἐσφάγης, is evident especially from 
the fact that the blood of the slain Lamb is designated as the price of the 
purchase. On the subject itself, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20; 1 Pet. i. 18 sqq.; Acts 
xx. 28. —ék πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους. Object with the parti- 
tive ἐκ. Cf. 1 John iv. 18; Matt. xxv. 8 (Acts 11]. 17). In the connection of 
the four expressions, the progress from less to greater? is of no significance, 
because unintentional; but what is of importance, and recurs uniformly in 
all similar passages, even though another expression ? be chosen, is the num- 
ber four, which serves to mark 8 the idea of universality. Every more defi- 
nite reference, however, which is given any one of the four expressions, is 
consistent neither with the πάσης, nor with the intention of the entire man- 
ner of expression. — καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς καὶ βασιλεύουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς 
γῆς. This passage is distinguished from what is said in i. 6, jirst, by the 
καὶ before ἱερεῖς, and immediately afterwards by the important addition 
καὶ βασιλεύουσιν, «.t.A. The latter would be superfluous, if either the reading 
received by Hengstenb., etc., were correct,® or the βασιλείαν could have had the 
meaning stated by Hengstenb. on i. 6, i.e., “a people invested with regal 
authority.” Three things are here expressed: jirst, that those purchased to 
be God’s property have been made into ἃ βασιλεία, viz., of God, —i.e., they 
are gathered as God’s property into God’s kingdom; immediately after- 
wards (καὶ) that they are made priests; finally (καὶ), they themselves have 
been invested with regal authority. So Ebrard, correctly.6 The last, ex- 
pressed in an independent member of the sentence, and so far distinguished 
from the two predicates βασιλείαν and ἱερεῖς, has its justification in the mean- 
ing of i. 9; and it is a perversion to change the present βασιλεύουσιν into a 
future,” or to take it in the sense of a future. It is especially appropriate 
that the heavenly beings into whose mouths the song of praise, vv. 9, 10, is 
placed, should recognize in the contending and persecuting church the 
kings of the earth. 

Vv. 11,12. Kai εἶδον. Without foundation, Ebrard: ‘John sees some- 
thing new, viz., he hears,” according to the arbitrary conception that eidov 
designates, “in the weakened wide sense, visionary observation in general.” 
Correctly, Beng., De Wette, etc.: ‘‘ John sees the hosts of angels whose 
voice he hears.” Cf. vi. 1 sqq. — Around the throne of God, and the four 
beings, and the twenty-four elders, the attention of the seer is completely 
occupied; he sees now the heavenly host,§ an innumerable multitude: καὶ qv 
ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν μυριάδες μυριάδων καὶ χιλιάδες χιλιάδων. The statement of numbers 
is still fuller than in Dan. vii. 10,9 and indicates by its indefiniteness — for 
it is not said how many are the myriads of myriads — actual innumerability. 
Incorrectly, Bengel: “ A less number added to the greater forbids both to be 
taken too indefinitely.” The anti-climax 19 has the meaning that even the 
preceding very great number is still insufficient, but not that “with the im- 


1 ἐν τ, αἷμ. σ. Cf. Winer, p. 365. 5 See Critical Notes. 

2 vii. 9, xi. 9, xiii. 7, xiv.6; cf. x. 11, xvii. 15. 6 Cf. Beng. 7 See Critical Notes. 
3 Beng., Hengstenb. ; 8 1 Kings xii. 14. 

4 Beng. refers the φυλῆς, Ziill. the λαοῦ, to 9 χίλιαι χιλιάδες --- καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες. 


the Jews. 10 Cf. also Ps. Ixviii. 18. 


CHAP. V. 13. 20D 


mense number the distinction vanishes.” 1 — λέγοντες, cf. iv. 1, 8. ---- φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, 
ef. i. 10. —Aadeiv, in adoring acknowledgment.?— τὴν δύναμιν. The article 


notes the power as peculiar to the Lamb; this, as also the δόξαν and τιμὴν, is 


shared with the enthroned God.? The force of the art., placed at the begin- 
ning, which in iv. 11 and vii. 12 is expressly repeated before each particular 
conception, affects the entire connection. Beng., excellently: “These seven 
words of praise must be expressed as though they were a single word, be- 
cause they all stand with one another after a single article.” 4— πλοῦτον. 
Mentioned also in 1 Chron. xxix. 11, 12; is not to be limited to the posses- 
sion and distribution of spiritual goods,® but is in every respect unconditioned 
wealth in all blessings,’ as it belongs to the all-sufficient God, and likewise 
to the Lamb who shares all his glory, and, therefore, also his throne.’ — 
εὐλογία, not “blessing,” ® but praise, honor. The seven items of the ascrip- 
tion of praise have, in other respects, nothing whatever to do with the seven 
seals,!° but are accumulated in this number," in order to express their holy 
completeness. 

Ver. 13. As John wishes to state how finally “every creature (πᾶν κτίσμα) 
unites in the hymns of praise which have thus far been heard,—and that, 
too, so that now praise and honor are proclaimed alike to the enthroned God 
and the Lamb, and consequently, the hymns of praise from the two chs. iv. 
and v. are united in an overpowering harmony,!*—he expressly mentions 
the four great “regions of the creation,” 18 the whole of which he wishes to 
represent, just as in Ps. exlvi. 6, Phil. ii. 11, the entire creation is described 
in its three chief departments. Grot., etc., incorrectly: ἐπὶ r. θαλάσσης is syn- 
onymous with ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς. Entirely distorted is also the forced interpreta- 
tion of Alcasar, according to which ἐν τ. οὐρ. is to be regarded as referring to 
Christians, ἐπὶ τ. γῆς to Jews, ἐπὲ τ. θαλ. to heathen, and ὑποκ. τ. γ. the damned 
and devils. Similar interpretations are to be found on Phil. ii. 10.14 Yet 
the question as to what is meant by the πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ dare not be 
repulsed by the remark, which in itself is correct, that only one “ exhaustive 
enumeration ” is intended.!5 “Jn heaven,” we cannot seek sun, moon, and 
stars,1® but only the living heavenly beings to whom the godly glorified ones 
belong. “On the earth” is first collective humanity, yet all other creatures 
are connected therewith in thought. “Under the earth” are not demons, 
“ who unwillingly obey Christ,” 11 the devils, who by “their very existence, and 
the gifts wherewith they are furnished, are a striking proof of the greatness 
and love of the Lamb also, because all things have been created by the Son,18 
—this is a reference alien to the connection in general, and entirely so to 
the designation τὸ ἀρνίον, ---- but those contained in Hades,!9 yet not in purga- 


” 


1 Hengstenb. 10 Against Beng. 
2 iv.11. Ew., De Wette, Ebrard, etc. 11 As also vii. 12. 
8 iv. 11. 12 Cf. Boss., Hengstenb., Ebrard, ete. 
4 Cf. also Hengstenb. 13 Beng. 
5 Cf. Eph. iii. 8; John i. 16. 14 See Meyer in loc. 
6 De Wette, Hengstenb., who refers to vv. 15 Ebrard. 
9, 10. 16 C. a Lap. 17 Vitr. 
7 Cf. Acts xvii 25; Jas. i. 17. 18 John i. 8, 10; Hengstenb. 


8 Cf. Vitr., Ew. 9 Beng. 19 Cf. Phil. ii. 10. 4 


216 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


tory.! By ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, i-e., “on the sea” —not “in the sea,” ? for the 
change of prepositions is to be accurately noticed —refers not to ships, but 
to such creatures as belong to the sea itself, here represented as situated not 
in the same,’ but on the surface.*— καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς. On the καὶ, introducing 
an idea whereby several preceding special points are definitively comprised, 
cf. Matt. xxvi. 59; Mark xv. 1.5— év αὐτοῖς, viz., in the spheres mentioned. 
Incorrectly, Grot.: “‘The things which are most deeply seated in animals 
and things, and escape the eyes of men.’ — πάντας ἤκουσα λέγοντας. If this 
reading is more correct than the, of course easier, καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα HK. λέ- 
yovra,® the masc. form is explained not by the arbitrary conception ἴ that the 
ascription of praise proceeds not so much from creatures in the different 
regions of the creation (πᾶν κτίσμα, «.7.A.) as rather from angels who, as chiefs, 
represent these regions; but the express form ὃ corresponds to the prosopo- 
poeia,? which here is still bolder than, e.g., Ps. ciii. 22, cxlviii. 1 sqq., xix. 
1 sqq., because here John in his vision actually hears the song of praise 
raised by all the works of God.— The four points of the ascription of 
praise correspond with the simple classification of the entire creation; 19 but 
it is arbitrary to limit the εὐλογία to the κτίσμα 6 ἐν τ. ουρανῷ, etc. 

Ver. 14. The Amen, the formal confirmation and conclusion of the hymn 
of praise,!? is uttered by the four beings, not because they occupy in any 
respect “a lower position,” 13 but because the whole tenor of the hymn of 
praise in chs. iv. and v., after resounding in ver. 13 to the farthest extent, 
returns to the point whence it started,}* and thus comes to a truly beautiful 
rest.15 But after the Amen has been uttered, nothing else remains for the 
elders than silent adoration, which, naturally,?® is directed also to the Lamb, 
and not alone to the One sitting on the throne.” 


ΝΟΤΕΒ BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XLV. Ver. 5. ὁ λέων 6 ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς ᾿Ιούδα, κ.τ.1, 


The expression is based upon Gen. xlix. 9. On the basis of Jacob’s prophecy, 
a young lion was emblazoned on the standard of Judah, as it led the van of 
Israel’s march through the desert. See Palestinian Targum on Num. ii. 2: 
‘“‘They who encamp eastward shall be of the standard of the camp of Judah, 
spreading over four miles. And his standard shall be of silk, of three colors, 
corresponding with the precious stones which are in the breastplate, —sardius, 
topaz, and carbuncle; and upon it shall be expressed and set forth the names of 


1 ©. a Lap. 2 Luther, etc. 18 Hengstenb. 

8 Cf. the τὰ ἐν avr. 14 Cf. iv. 8 sqq. 

4 Cf. De Wette. 5 15 Cf, Beng., Ebrard. 

5 Winer, p. 407. 16 Cf. ν. 13. 

6 See Critical Notes. 17 As Ew. i. thought, supported by the com- 
7 Ewald. pletely untenable Recepta: προσκυν. ζῶντι εἰς 
8 Cf. iv. 8. TOUS αἰῶνας TOV αἰώνων, and corresponding to 
9 Cf. De Wette. the view imposed upon John, that the Messiah 
10 Beng. also is a creation (‘‘ with adoration they hon- 
11 Against Beng. ored God—as from him as author all things 


_ 


2 Ewald. Cf. Deut. xxvii. 15 sqq.; Neh. v. have proceeded, and the Messiah was created,” 
13; Ps. xli. 14; 1or. xiv. 16. iv. 2 sqq.-) 


= 


NOTES. 217 


the three tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun; and in the midst shall be 
written, ‘ Arise, O Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered, and thine adver- 
saries be driven away before thee;’ and upon it shall be set forth the figure of a 
young ἴον." Augustine, Serm. xlvi., quoted by Calov.: ‘‘ As a Lamb in his 
passion, so a Lion in his resurrection; since by this he manifested his fortitude 
in conquering death, and crushing the head of the infernal serpent (Gen. iii. 15; 
Hos. xiii. 14; Rom. i. 4).”’ Cf. Heb. ii. 14. Calov. finds the lion-like character 
of Christ displayed also in the call of the Gentiles. The ἡ ῥίζα Aaveid is analo- 
gous with ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυείδ in Rom. i. 3, it being, as Hengstenberg remarks, 
‘‘in David that the lion nature of the tribe came into manifestation.’’ In 
Christ, the race of the hero and victor David, whose deeds of courage are cele- 
brated in Ps. xviii. 29 sqq., again comes forth. Calov.’s interpretation, referred 
to by Diist., which is that also of Ribera and Cocceius, rests upon the assump- 
tion that a double designation of the humanity of Christ, in both the Lion of 
Judah and the Root of David, is improbable; and that, in Rev. xxii. 16, there 
is a similar distinction between ‘‘ root”’ and “ offspring.’”’ Lange is right when 
he says, ‘“‘ The whole designation of Christ is a profound Christological saying, 
which refers neither alone to the human descent of the Saviour (Disterdieck), 
nor to his divine nature simply (Calov.).’? The divinely human person is desig- 
nated by terms derived, indeed, from his humanity; but, because of the personal 
union and the inseparable participation of both natures in every act, compre- 
hending our Lord also in his divinity.”’ 


᾿ 


XLVI. Ver. 8. αἑ προσευχαὶ τῶν ἁγίων. 


See Apology of the Augsburg Confession (E. T., p. 286): ‘‘ We concede, that 
just as when alive they pray, in general, for the Church universal, so in heaven 
they pray for the Church in general.’’ This is sufficient without resorting 
to the expedient that representatives of the Church triumphant are not here 
thought of. Quenstedt (Theol. Didact.-pol., iv. 365): ‘‘ That the saints in heaven 
triumphing with Christ pray, in general, for the Church, is probably inferred 
from this passage. But, from this, it cannot be inferred that they have a special 
knowledge of all things, and are to be religiously invoked. By odors, are not 
meant prayers of saints who are in this life, but of those blessed ones who are 
reigning with Christ in heaven. These prayers are not ἱλαστικαὶ, propitiatory, 
meritorious, and satisfactory, as though, by virtue of their merit, they intercede 
by them for others, but εὐχαριστικαὶ as described (vv. 9, 10).’’ 


XLVII. Ver. 9. ὠδην καινὴν. 


The adjective is καινὸς, new in kind, not νεὸς, recent. Luthard: ‘ In dis- 
tinction from the song of creation (ch. iv.), the new song of redemption.’ 
Bengel: ‘‘ The word new is a thoroughly Apocalyptic word, —new name, new 
song, new heavens, new earth, new Jerusalem, — every thing new.’’ Calov.: 
“Τὺ is new because the singers are new, viz., the renewed in heaven; and the 
theme is new, viz., the incarnation, passion, and redemption of Christ.” 


218 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


CHAPTER VI! 


Ver. 1. φωνὴ. So already Beng., Griesb., Matth., after decisive testimonies. 
The poor variations φωνῆς (Elz.), φωνῶν, φωνήν (32), are modifications. — After 
ἔρχου, neither βλέπε (Elz.) nor ide (8, Beng.) is to be read. So according to A, 
C, 10, 17, al., ed. Compl., Genev., Lach., Tisch. [W..and H.]. Also, in vv. 3, 5, 
8, the insertion is to be deleted. — Ver 2. καὶ εἶδον is improperly omitted in 
most minusce. as superfluous. — Ver. 4. airw before λαβεῖν (Elz., Griesb., Tisch. ), 
omitted in A as superfluous, has sufficient testimony in C, δὲ, Vulg.; Lach. 
[W. and H.] has inserted it in brackets. — Instead of the unattested ἀπὸ τ. 
y. (Elz.), read & το, y. (C, &, 2, 4, 6, al., Vulg., Syr., Andr., Lach., Tisch.). 
Nevertheless, even the mere τῆς γῆς is a reading to be held in high esteem, in 
favor of which is the testimony of A, and which may have been the mater lec- 
tionis. —ogagovow, Elz., σφάξωσι (ἢ). But A, C, justify here the reading of 
the fut. (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]; cf. Winer, p. 271). — Ver. 6. In the Elz. 
text, in accord with A, Ὁ, &, 6, 12, 17, Vulg., ὡς is to be inserted (Lach.), which 
was omitted even by Tisch., 1873, because it was inconvenient. — Ver. 7. It is 
not improbable, that with Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.], in accord with A, &, 
Vulg. the reading is: φωνὴν τ. rer. ζ, λέγοντος (incorrectly, Elz., λέγουσαν), as the 
reading preferred by Tisch., etc., τοὺ rer. ¢. λέγοντος (4, 6, 7, 8, al, Syr., Copt., 
Aral.; cf. C: τὸ τέταρτον ζῶον λέγοντος), may be an adaptation to the mode of 
speech (vv. 3, 5). — Ver. 8. Instead of ἀκολουθεὶ (A, Elz., Beng., Tisch.), the 
reading is probably ἠκολούθει (B, C, 8, 2, 4, 6, al., Vulg., al., Griesb., Matth., 
Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]). — For μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, τὲ has the easier αὐτῳ. --- ἐδόθη 
αὐτοῖς. So, correctly, Elz., Lach., Tisch., 1859 [W. and H.], after A, C, 8. The 
reading aitw (2, 4, 6, al., Vulg., Syr., al., Griesb., Beng., Matth., Tisch., 1854) 
arises from vv. 2, 4.— Ver. 10. ἔκραξαν. So A, C, &, 2, 4, 6, al., Beng., Griesb., 
Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Without authenticity, Elz.: ἔκραζόν. --- ἐκ 
τῶν κατοῖκ. So, according to decisive witnesses, Matth. already. Incorrectly, 
Elz. (cf. Beng., Griesb.): a6. — Ver. 11. The μικρόν after χρόνον (Elz., Lach., 
Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]) is very strongly attested by A, Ὁ, δὲ, Vulg. It is lack- 
ing, it is true, in B, 2, 4, 6, al., Aeth., Ar., Compl., and is rejected by Beng., 
Griesb., Matth., Tisch.; but any transfer from xx. 3 is highly improbable, 
although it could readily have been omitted, because it seems difficult to make 
the further determination éw¢ mAno., κ.τ.λ.. accord with the brevity of the 
appointed time. — πληρωθῶσιν. So Beng., Treg., Lach., according with A, C, 
Vulg, al., Compl. Emendations are: πληρώσονται (Elz.), πληρώσωσιν (Ἀὲ, 2, 3, 4, 
8, al., Matth., Tisch.), πληρώσουσιν (28). Ver. 15. The πᾶς before éAevd. (Elz.) 
is, in accord with decisive witnesses, erased already bv Beng. 


1 Cf. De Apocalynsi Joannea ex rebus vatis aetate gestis explicanda disseruit. Ed. Bohmer. 
Fasc. 1, Hal. Sax., 1854. 


CHAP. VI. 219 


The seals of the book of fate were opened by the Lamb (cf. v. 1 sq.). 
Ch. vi. describes the opening of the first six of the seven seals, and reports 
the contents of the book thus unsealed. With vi. 17, the contents of the 
sixth seal are exhausted. Against Vitr., who finds in ch. vii. the second 
vision that is thought to proceed from the sixth seal, it may be noted already 
here, that the opening of each seal always brings with it only one vision.} 
Concerning the seventh seal, cf. viii. 1 sqq. —The seals are to be regarded 
not as belonging to the transitions of the book, but to the book itself; what 
is manifested at their opening serves, therefore, not as a significant type of 
what is contained only in the book itself, but by the opening of the seals 
the contents of the book are revealed.2 The visions presented after the 
opening of the seals, also, are not, as Heinr. thinks, figures portrayed in 
the transitions of the book, — which is in no way conceivable in the first four, 
to say nothing of the last three seals; but they are significative images and 
events, which, proceeding from the unsealed book itself, signify future things ? 
to the gazing prophet.? Ew. says, incorrectly, that the horsemen (vv. 2, 3, 
5, 8) “proceed from a narrow place.” They go forth from the unsealed 
book itself. — As the seven epistles, by a plain change in the form of com- 
position,‘ were classified into three and four, so the seven seals — apart from 
the fact that, by ch. vii., the seventh seal (viii. 1 sqq.) is separated from the 
first six — fall into four (vi. 1-8) and three (vi. 9 sqq.). But Bengel’s decis- 
ion is arbitrary; viz., that the former class of four seals refer to what is 
visible, and the latter of three to what is invisible.’ Still more arbitrarily, 
Alcasar thought that the first four seals represented “the conversion and 
happiness of the Jews who would believe in Christ; ”® but the last three, 
“the unhappiness and punishment of Jews rebelling against Christ.” In 
the first four seals, appear allegorical figures, horsemen on horses: in the last 
three, there are certain occurrences not portrayed in an allegorical way. 
Besides, the first four seals are placed in a certain relation to the four beings 
which surround God’s throne (iv. 6 sq.); while every time, when a seal is 
opened, one of the four beings says to John, gpyov. But this must not be 
carried into minute details. Thus Beng. places in the east what is indi- 
cated in the first seal, as the first beast has his place to the east of God’s 
throne, etc.; while Grot. finds it very suitable for his conception of the four 
beings, that, e.g., in the third seal, which treats of famine, and that, too, of 
that which occurred at the time of the Emperor Claudius, the third being, 
viz., Paul, speaks, for Agabus had prophesied to him of this famine.?7 But 
it would have been more consistent for Grot. to have regarded Agabus the 
third being. To the fourth seal, which threatens sicknesses, Grot. says, that 
the fourth being suits, viz., James, who, in his epistle, speaks of sicknesses. — 


1 Against Heinrichs, who thinks that only 5 «« The blessed dead, especially the martyrs, 
in ch. viii. the book itself is looked into, after the unblessed dead, and the holy angels with 
the seven sealed ‘‘ coverings’? have been re- their service.” 
moved. 6 The four horsemen are, ‘‘ Faith, Courage, 

2 ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα; cf. iv. 1. Want, Death, viz., as victor over the inordinate 

ΒΥ, Le affections of still unbelieving men.”’ 


4 See on ch. ii. 7 Acts xi. 27 sqq. 


220 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Other expositors,! because of the signs of victory of the first seal compared 
with the victorious leonine strength and courage of the first lion-like being, 
and because of the persecutions of Christians, have mentioned thereon that 
the second being is like an ox, i.e , an animal for sacrifice, and more of such 
arbitrary interpretations. In accord with the allegorical meaning of the 
four beings who represent the living creation, especially the earthly, out of 
which their significant forms are fashioned,? and in accord with that which 
is reported concerning the visions themselves,’ is the relation between the 
four beings and the first four visions of the seals, which in the constant ἔρχου 
of the individual beings, and in the voice (ver. 6) sounding in the midst of 
the four beasts, stamps the fact that visions are revealed which pertain to 
the earthly world, and that, too, to the whole of it.4 

Ver. 1. Καὶ εἶδον ὅτε, x.7.A.. does not mean, “J was a spectator when the 
Lamb opened a seal:’’5 the opening of the seal is not designated as the 
object of the εἶδον. De Wette? and Ebrard attach such a wide significance 
to the εἶδον, that it may include the hearing mentioned directly afterwards; 
the meaning is that the prophetic “ beholding” properly consisted in “ hear- 
ing.” It is more correct to say that what John sees when the seal is opened, 
he describes first in ver. 2, where the repeated καὶ eidov refers back to ver. 1. 
As in the vision itself, so also in its description, something heard is yet 
interposed. — μίαν. The cardinal number does not stand here for the ordi- 
nal, but here, as directly afterwards in the ἑνὸς é τ. τ. ¢., 1t 15 only expressed 
that one of the seals (beasts) is spoken of. The order of succession is not 
marked until afterwards (vv. 3, 5, 7).9 — ὡς φωνὴ βροντῆς. Loose construction. 
The voice of thunder belongs to all four beings, because they are alike super- 
terrestrial.!0 To the one of the four beings who speaks first, this voice is 
expressly ascribed, only because it is the first to speak. The thunder note 
of the voice has nothing to do with the contents of the first seal.11— ἔρχου. 
Even if the addition καὶ βλέπε were genuine,!” a parallelizing of these words 
with John i. 40, 47 would be inapplicable, and a critical inference as to the 
composition of the Apoc. by the Evangelist John would be without founda- 
tion.18 Not even is the note of Schottgen 14 here applicable: “ This formula, 
occurring in the Holy Scriptures only in John, is the well-known i181) δὲ 
of the rabbins. — They employ it, however, as often as at the close of a dis- 
putation one approaches who makes a declaration concerning the subject.” 
The command ἔρχου 15 is very simple, and is seriously meant: “John is to 
come up;” viz., to see accurately what proceeds from the unsealed book. 
This is written immediately afterwards. 

Ver. 2. John saw “a white horse, and he that sat on it had a bow; and 


1 C. a Lap., Stern, Vitr., etc. 11 Against Hengstenb. 

2 Cf. iv. 7 sqq. 3 vi. 1-8. 12 See Critical Notes. 

4 Cf. Ew., Hengstenb., Ebrard. * 18. Against Hengstenb. 

5 Hengstenb. 14 On John i. 47. 

6 Luther, incorrectly: “1 saw that” — 15 Inconceivable, and in violation of the con- 
7 Otherwise than ν. 11. text, because of the immediately following 
8 Against Ew. ii., etc. καὶ εἶδον, is the reference of the épxov here, as 
9 Cf. also Winer, p. 233. in vv. 3, 5, 7, to the appearance of the ap- 


το GP. deL0G xe as proaching horseman (against Klief.). 


CHAP. VI. 2. 221 


a crown was given unto him, and he went forth conquering and to conquer.” 
The entire form is that of a warrior, and that, too, of one victorious, and 
triumphing in the certainty of victory. All the individual features of the 
image harmoniously express this. The horses of the Roman triumphers 
were white.1_ On white horses, therefore,? appear not only Christ himself, 
but also his hosts triumphing with him. — That the weapon of the horse- 
man is a bow, not a sword, has scarcely a symbolical significance. The sym- 
bol would be distorted if Wetst. were correct in saying that by the bow, 
with which work is done at a distance, the intention is to indicate that the 
reference is properly to a victory, occurring at a distance from Judaea, of 
the Parthian king Artabanus II.,3 who made war upon the Jews in Babylon; 
but if this were the meaning, the entire form of the horseman, which, in the 
manner proposed, is to represent that king, must have appeared at a greater 
distance. Arbitrary is also the explanation of Vitr.: “ A bow, not a sword, 
in order to withdraw our thought from Roman emperors to Christ.” If, as 
by Vitr., importance be laid upon the fact that the bow is pre-eminently 
peculiar to Parthian and Asiatic warriors in general, and not to the Roman, 
we dare not find in the bow an emblem of Christ; in order, then, to explain 
not so much the bow mentioned as rather the supplied darts of the numerous 
apostles and evangelists through whose forcible preaching Christ won his 
victory. Instead of the bow,.in Ps. xlv. 6, the darts are mentioned, and 
that, too, beside the sword (ver. 4), in a description which may have floated 
before John.> In this passage, what is ascribed to the bow can indicate 
nothing further than that the warrior equipped therewith may meet his foes 
also at a distance. — ἐδύθη αὐτῷ στέφανος. The crown—whose meaning, in 
connection with what immediately follows, is indubitable*—Jis given the 
warrior, because it is to be marked in the beginning directly, by this going 
forth, that he already goes forth as a νικῶν, and, therefore, that the goal of 
his going forth καὶ iva νικήσῃ is undoubtedly reached. ὃὲ has even the inter- 
pretation: καὶ évixyoev. — The true meaning of this passage is suggested by 
the statement: x. ἐξῆλθεν νικῶν καὶ iva νικῆσῃ, especially in connection with the 
succeeding forms of horsemen, but also still further in connection with the 
fundamental idea of the entire Apoc., particularly the parallel passages xix. 
11 sqq., where, in perfect correspondence with the harmonious plan of the 
book, the form of a horseman comes forth still more gloriously, and at the 
same time is expressly explained. If we regard only the forms of horsemen 

proceeding from the three following seals, which, according to the unam- 


1 Cf. in general Virg., Aen. iii. 587 sqq.: 
*‘Quattuor hic, primum omen, equos in gra- 
mine vidi— candore nivali”’ (‘‘ Here, as the 
first omen, I saw four horses on the grass — 
of snowy brightness’’). Beside this, Servius: 
“This pertains to the omen of victory.’? More 
of the same kind in Wetst. 

2 xix. 11 sqq. 

3 Joseph., Ant. xviii. 2, 9. 

4 Against Vitr.; also against Victorin., 
Beda, N. de Lyra, Calov., etc. 


5 Tnapplicable is the comparison usual with 
the expositors, of the horsemen of vy. 2-8, with 
the horsemen and horses of Zech. i. 8 sqq., 
and the chariots, Zech. vi. 1 sqq., where neither 
the forms beheld, in themselves, nor the at- 
tached signification, agrees with the vision in 
our passage. Even the colors of the horses 
are not the same, much less their meaning (cf, 
Zech. vi. 6). 

6 Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 25. Incorrectly Ziill., 
Hengstenb.: ‘‘ regal crowns.” 


222 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

biguous hints in the text, are the very personifications of the shedding of 
blood (ver. 4), famine (ver. 6), and death (ver. 8), nothing is nearer than 
the opinion that even the first horseman is a personification, yet not of Chris- 
tianity,1 — to which not a single feature of the picture leads, even apart from 
the fact that, except in the person of Christ, a personification of Christianity 
is scarcely conceivable, — but of victory, or of war on the side of victory ;? 
with which it would well agree, that, in vv. 8 sqq., war should be represented 
in its other sides and consequences. So, already, Bengel,? Herder, Eichh., 
Ew. ii., of whom the latter, like Wetst., limits the idea of the horseman to 
Judaea. According to this conception, De Wette* judges, with entire con- 
sistency, that the similar image of a horseman, referring to Christ,> is in- 
tended to be antithetical in its relation to the present; there at the end, 
Christ with his “spiritual victory,” in opposition to the “vain boast of vic- 
tory’ of the warrior here at the beginning. But in the text there is no 
trace whatever of such contrast; that the victor here represented had, and 
wished to win, only a vain worldly victory, has as little foundation as it is 
unsatisfactory for Christ’s victory to be called only a “ spiritual ” one, as even 
the external ruin of Babylon belongs essentially thereto. With correctness, 
most expositors ὃ regard the horseman of the first, identical with that of xix. 
11 sqq. The characteristic attributes are essentially synonymous. Yet in 
the one case we stand, of course, at the glorious end of the entire development 
of the kingdom of Christ, while here the Lord first goes forth to bring about 
that end; but just because only he can go forth to conquer, who is already 
a victor (νικῶν), even here the form of the Lord is essentially the same as at 
the end. Since the very appearance of Christ reveals all the visions which 
proceed from the unsealed book of fate, it is indicated that he guides and 
determines the course and end of all the events portrayed in the succeeding 
visions; in the prophetic figures, also, which John beholds, as well as in the 
things portrayed, the Lord is the beginning and end, the First and Last, 
who will triumph over all enemies (iva νικῆσῃ), as he is already properly 
victor (νικῶν) over them. To any special victory of Christ, as possibly the 
results of the preaching at Pentecost,’ the νικῶν, even because of the present 
form, cannot refer; in the sense of the Apoc., as also of the whole N. T., 
Christ is absolute victor over all that is hostile, just because he is Christ, i.e., 
the Son of God, who has suffered in the fiesh, and arisen and ascended into 
heaven, or because he is the Lamb of God who possesses God’s throne. 
The νικῶν presupposing the ἐνίκησα, iii. 21 (v. 5), and including in itself 


1 Stern. 

2 De Wette. 

3 Whose opinion, as a rule inaccurate, here 
is given, that he regards the first horseman as 
the Emperor Trajan. Beng. says expressly: 
“Βα Trajan is far too small to be such an 
horseman.”?, Yet Beng. finds, even in Trajan, 
one and that too the first of the ““ conquerors,”’ 
whose dominion and victory are represented 
by the first horseman: “ΒΥ the horseman 
himself is represented a certain kind of worldly 


career, as throughout all time in government 
and the state, it is constantly attended by (1) 
a flourishing condition; (2), the shedding of 
blood.” 

4 Cf., already, Beng. 

5 xix. 11 sqq. 

6 Victorin., Beda, N. de Lyra, Zeger, Grot., 
Vitr., Calov., Hengstenb., Ebrard, Bohmer, 
Klief., ete. 

7 Cf. v. 5, iii. 21. 

8 Grot., etc. 


CHAP. VI. 3, 4. 223 


already the iva νικήσῃ, designates also the true ground upon which believers 
in Christ are “to conquer,” and can conquer, and have to expect from the 
Lord a victor’s reward.!_- Thus the triumphing image of Christ at the be- 
ginning of all the visions, proceeding from the book of fate, is in harmony 
with the fundamental idea and paracletic tendency of the entire Apoc. 

As little as the emblem of the bow, does the horse in itself or its white 
color have any special significance; any exposition that in such matters 
_ seeks any thing more than such emblems whereby the entire form of the 
horseman is characterized as that of a victorious warrior, and which pro- 
ceeds to a special interpretation of the individual characteristic features, 
instead of regarding the unity of significance in the entire image, must 
result in what is arbitrary and frivolous. This is contrary to all the expos- 
itors, who understand by the white horse the Church,? and that, too, the 
apostolic primitive Church, in its purity and peaceful condition prior to 
persecutions, which are found in the second seal,’ as Beda, Andr., Areth., 
N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Calov., etc. [See Note XLVIIL, p. 284.] 

Vy. 3,4. When the Lamb‘ opens the second seal, John is again com- 
manded, and this time by the second of the beings, to come; it is therefore 
presupposed, that after the vision of the first seal had ended, and the first 
image of a horseman had vanished, he had again withdrawn, and taken his 
original place.5 The forrf proceeding from the book of fate after the open- 
ing of the second seal (ἐξῆλθεν, cf. ver. 2) is that of personified shedding 
of blood. This is so obviously indicated by the red color of the horse,® 
whereby it was granted (ἐδόθη, cf. iii. 21) to take peace away from the earth 
with the effect of a slaughtering of one another by the dwellers upon earth,? 
and by the corresponding emblem of a great sword which was given (ἐδόθη, 
ef. ver. 2),8 that expositors are united concerning the essential significance 
of the vision. The more accurate determination of the intention of the 
threatening manifestation is given partly from the words ἐκ τῆς γῆς, and 
partly from the connection of the whole, decided already in the first sight of 
a seal. As ἐκ τῆς γῆς does not mean “from the land of Judaea, and the places 
in which there were Jews,” 19 certainly the vision as a prophecy post eventum 
cannot refer to the Jewish war, and the rapine and strifes of factions which 
occurred during its continuance, especially in Jerusalem.!! Since, on the 
other hand, because of the connection of λαβ. τ. eip. ἐκ τῆς γῆς and ἀλλῆλους 
σφάξουσιν, Only the κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 153 can be regarded as subject to 


A i1.'7, 11, ete.: cf. xxi. 7; 

2 ** Over the church, made white by his grace 
beyond snow, the Lord presides ”’ (Beda). 

3 Cf., e.g., Vitr.: “The white color desig- 
nates that by his providence God will take 
care, that, at the time indicated by this seal, 
the Church shall have peace.” 

4 Cf. ver. 1. 

5 Cf., also, vv. 5,7. Ebrard. 

6 Cf. 2 Kings iii. 22; LXX.: ὕδατα muppa ws 
αἷμα. 

1 The ἵνα with the ind. fut., in the epexe- 
getical clause καὶ tva, «.7,A., stands in combi- 


nation with ἐδόθη αὐτῷ, just as the ἵνα after 
ποιήσω, iii. 9. 

8 It is to be noted how excellently the signi- 
ficant instrument, the μάχαιρα, applies to the 
slaying which is announced (σφάξουσιν; cf. 
ver. 6). 

9 Apart from individual, entirely untenable, 
arbitrary explanations, as in Alcasar. 

10 Grot. 

11 ** Intestine dissensions, robbers, assassins, 
insurrection of Theudas,” etc., Wetst.; cf. 
Herder, Bohmer, also Eich., Heiur., etc. 

12 11], 10. 


224 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
ἀλλήλους σφάξ., who kill one another, those massacred cannot be Christians, i.e., 
the discourse cannot be in reference to the persecutions of Christians; for 
then also, in reference to the combination of the first four seal-visions, it is 
entirely arbitrary to assert that the last three horsemen occupy a hostile 
position towards the first.1 Incorrect, therefore, are all expositions which 
in the second seal-vision find the persecution of Christians; as well those 
specially expounding 10,2 as those holding it more or less in general. On 
the contrary, as in Matt. xxiv. 7, 8, wars in the world are regarded as the 
first presage of the parousia of Christ, the ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων, so there appears here 
the personification of the shedding of blood, which is to occur on earth in 
consequence of the Lord’s approach for the glorious and victorious end. 
Even sanguinary war serves the Lord at his coming. Believers, too, are of 
course alarmed by the πειρασμός which is thus proclaimed by the second seal- 
vision ;4# but their Lord not only preserves them, but at the signs of his 
coming they are to be the more confident in their hope, since their redemp- 
tion approaches.® 

Vv. 5, 6. The meaning of the third seal-vision is to be determined 
according to the same norm as that of the second. The black color of the 
horse designates not the grief of those who have been afflicted by the plagues 
indicated by the entire image of the horseman,® especially not the grief of 
the Church over heresy, as it is symbolized by the horse and horseman; 
but the black color must correspond to the destructive character of the image 
of the horseman itself.7 Yet it is not perceptible how, by this color, the 
particular nature of the plague announced, viz., famine, is expressed : ὃ it is 
sufficient to regard the black color® as an indication that the figure appearing 
therein is one of a plague, a servant of divine judgment. — First, the special 
emblem ascribed to the horseman (ἔχ. ζυγὸν, «.7.4.), in addition to the unambig- 
uous exclamation χοῖνιξ σίτου, x.7.2., makes us recognize in the third figure of a 
horseman the personification of famine. — ζυγόν. As to the expression, ζυγός 
means properly the beam which unites the two scales, cf. Prov. xvi. 11; as 
to the subject itself, since by the weighing of the grain which otherwise is 
measured, famine is represented, οἵ. Lev. xxvi. 26, Ezek. iv. 16. — ὡς before 
φωνὴν 1° corresponds with the circumstance that, to John, the person from 
whom the voice proceeds 4 remains unknown. “ Audivi ut vocem,” a Latin 
would say; i.e., “I heard (something) like a voice.” That the cry sounds 
forth “in the midst of the four beings,” is, in itself, natural, since the 
unsealing of the book of fate occurs at the throne of God, which is in the 


1“ Against the victorious and conquering 
Church, a red horse goes forth, i.e., an unfa- 
vorable populace, bloody from their rider, the 
Devil’’ (Beda). 

2 e.g., N. de Lyra: ‘*The red horse is the 
Roman people; the rider is Nero.” 

3 e.g., Beda, Zeger, Calov.: ‘* The red horse, 
an unfavorable people, an assembly of the 
godless; the rider is the Devil.” Cf. also 
Andr., Areth., Laun., Vitr., who regard the 
rider a personification of the Roman Empire, 
and suggest Decius and others; Stern, who, 


in the entire form of each personification, sees 
ouly the worldly power thirsting for the blood 
of Christians, etc. 

4 Cf. iii. 10. 

5 Hengstenb., Ebrard, also Beng., Ew., De 
Wette. 

6 De Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 

7 Cf. vv. 2, 4, 8. 

8 Beng. 

10 See Critical Notes. 

11 Cf. i. 12. 

12 Of. ix. 13, x. 4, 8, xiv. 18, xviii. 4. 


9 Cf. ver. 12. 


« 


CHAP. VI. 5, 6. 225 


midst of the four beings; but as it is not without significance that the four 
beings, as representatives of the living creatures on earth, cry out to John, 
ἔρχου, 80 is it likewise significant that in the midst of those beings the cry 
sounds forth, which accompanies the figure of a plague pertaining to living 
creatures 2 The first half of the call sounds just as when any thing is offered 
for sale. The gen. δηναρίου is that of the price.4 The second sentence 
contains a command which prescribes to the horseman, not only as the per- 
sonification of the famine, but as the bearer of the visitation, the limit of 
the plague ordained by the Lord. Oil and wine are to grow as ordinarily: 
μὴ ἀδικήσῃς, i.e., “Do them no harm, injure them not;”® although wheat and 
barley, and therefore the unconditionally necessary means of subsistence, are 
to be so dear that a day-laborer for his daily labor receives a denarius,® noth- 
ing more than daily food for himself, —a choiniz of wheat, which is a man’s? 
daily nourishment. If, therefore, the famine indicated do not reach the 
utmost extreme of hunger,’ yet the grievousness of the plague is obvious to 
every one who has learned to know the life of the people, viz., of the lower 
classes, in the neighborhood. That oil and wine remain exempted, is, of 
course, a mitigation of the famine; but on the other hand, by the plentiful 
presence of these two means of nourishment, even though in Oriental life 
they are luxuries far less than among us, the πειρασμός lying in the famine 
which had entered is essentially strengthened, and the critical foree also of 
these plagues in an ethical respect, which belong to the signs preceding 
Christ’s coming, intensified. 

The reference of vv. 5, 6, to the famine under Claudius,?° or to any other 
particular dearth, is decidedly contrary to the sense of the text; since here, 
as also in vv. 3, 4, and ver. 7 sqq., no special fact is meant, especially not 
one predicted only after its occurrence, but rather, in accord with the funda- 
mental prophecy (Matt. xxiv. 7), a certain kind of plagues is described,}? 
which precede the coming of the Lord. Purely arbitrary is the allegorizing 
interpretation, e.g., in Beda,}8 Vitr.,}4 C. a Lap.,15 Stern,!® etc. N. de Lyra 
understands by the black horse, the Roman army; by the horseman, Titus; 
by the wheat and barley, Jews; by oil and wine, Christians. The acme of 
arbitrary interpretation is attained by those who, as even Bohmer, under- 
stand the wheat and barley properly, and the wine and oil figuratively as a 
designation of Christians. Any such distinction would have been indicated 


1 iy. 6,.v.'6. | 2 Cf. also Hengstenb. 13 ‘The black horse is the band of false 
3 Winer, p. 456. brethren, who have the balance of a right pro- 
4 Winer, p. 194. . fession, but injure their associates by works of 
5 Cf. vii. 2, 3, ix. 4, 10, 19, ii. 11. darkness.” 

6 Matt. xx. 2. 14“ Dearness of spiritual provision, viz., 
7 Cf. Wetst. in the time from Constantine until the ninth 
8 Cf. Joel i. 10 sqq. century.” 

9 Matt. xxiv. 7. Hengstenb. incorrectly 15 ἵππος = a heretic, as Arius; ὁ καθήμ.ΞΞ 186 


judges, that the famine, vv. 5, 6, does not be- Devil, or heresiarch; ζυγός and χοῖνιξ = Holy 
long to the λιμοί, Matt. xxiv. 7, but is ‘the Scripture; dyvap.=the merit of sound faith 


prelude of that fulfilment.”’ and of daily holy life; ovr. = the gospel; κριθ. 
10 Grot., Wetst., Harenb., Herd., Bo6hm. =the harsh old law; ἔλ. and οἷν. = the medi- 
11 Cf. Calov., Bengel, Huschke. cine of our Samaritan Christ. 


12 Cf. De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 16 Personified erroneous doctrine. 


226 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


by the omission of the art. with σίτου and κριθῶν, whereas, on the other hand, 
it is found with éAwov and oivov. But although the art. in the latter case des- 
ignates simply the class as a whole, this is lacking in the former case just as 
naturally; since there not the kind of fruit as such, but a quantity, is men- 
tioned, which therefore allows no other designation than that of the mass, 
which in simple composition is given as χοῖνιξ σίτου. 

Vv. 7, 8. The fourth form of horseman is recognizable not only by the 
entire description, but also his name is expressly mentioned: ὄνομα αὐτῷ ὁ 
Θάνατος. The text is thus as contradictory as is possible to all allegorizing 
interpretations of mortal heresy,! of the complete falling away from Christ as 
spiritual death,? of the Saracens and Turks,’ of the Roman people with the 
Emperor Domitian, whom “ Hell follows,” because immediately after his 
death he entered it.4 Incorrect, also, as in vv. 5, 6, is the limited reference of 
the whole to any special case, as possibly to the diseases and rapine which 
occurred at the time of the Jewish war in consequence of the famine (vv. 5, 
6),° or to the devastations made by the flavi Germani, and other nations of 
the migration. As already by the ancient prophets, in addition to the 
sword? and hunger,’ pestilence ® and also wild beasts 19 were called grievous 
divine judgments, so the Lord also enumerates pestilences (λοιμοί) among the 
signs of his coming. Yet it does not follow thence that the horseman, who 
has the name ὁ Θάνατος, is the plague; but it corresponds with those types, 
that death personified, just as the shedding of blood personified, and famine 
personified, should enter because of the Lord’s going forth to his victorious 
goal, and that the means mentioned (ver. 8) should ascribe to him deadly 
efficacy. This horse has the color which agrees with his work. χλωρός desig- 
nates not only the fresh green of the grass,!? but also the greenish pallor of 
fear 18 and of death.14— 6 καθήμενος. The loose but forcible construction in 
which the preceding nom. is absorbed by the following dat. (ὄν. αὐτῷ 6 Θαν.), 
as in 111. 12, 21. —xal ὁ “Αἰδης ἠκολούθει μετ’ αὐτοῦ. The μετά with ἀκολ. as Luke 
ix. 48. To understand Hades by metonymy for the inhabitants of Hades, 
the host of those swept away by death,’ is an assumption which not only 
gives a monstrous idea, but also especially avoids the correct reading ἐδόθη 
αὐτοῖς. The incorrect explanation, as well as the incorrect reading αὐτῷ, de- 
pends upon the failure to recognize the fact that Hades, i.e., the place 
belonging to death,!® because filled by the agency of death, is represented 
here like death itself, as a person following death. The idea of locality, 
which especially belongs to Hades, is also in i. 18 decisive as to the idea of 
death ; conversely here and in. xx. 13 sqq., Hades is personally considered, 
which suits better the idea of death. But to regard Hades only as the place 


1 Beda, who mentions especially Arius; 93°. LXX.: θάνατος, Jer. xxi. 7, xiv. 12. 
Zeger, etc. 10 Ley. xvi. 22; Ezek. xiv. 21. 

2 Stern. 11 ἐς Pestis nomine mortis’’ (Hichh.). 

3 Vitr., C. a Lap. 12 viii. 7, ix. 4; Mark vi. 39. 

4 N. de Lyra. 13 J], vii. 479. 

5 Wetst., Grot., Herd., BOhmer. 14 Pallida mors. 

6 Huschke. 15 Hichh., Ebrard. 


7 Cf. v. 3 sqq. 8 Cf. ver. 5 sqq. 16 Cf. i. 18, xx. 13 sqq. 


CHAP. VI. 9-11. 227 


of torment for the damned,! is only possible if the plagues indicated in ver. 
8 are misunderstood as though pertaining to unbelievers alone. ‘The con- 
trary is decided partly by the entire tendency of all four seal-visions, and © 
partly, especially in this place, by the express extension of the dominant 
power granted death and hell following it, to the fourth part of the earth, 
and therefore of all inhabitants of the earth, believers — who have patiently 
endured and hoped for the coming of the Lord —as well as unbelievers. — 
τὸ τέταρτον. The schematic number gives the idea of a considerably great 
portion of the whole; a still greater part is designated by the schematic 
three.’ — ἐν, as a designation of the instrument or means,* stands properly 
with ῥομφαίᾳ, λιμῷ, and θανατῷ; while to θηρίων, as the beasts themselves are 
active, ὑπό is attached,’ which in other cases also is combined in classical 
Greek with the active. The ῥομφαία, ver. 8, has as little to do with the 
μάχαιρα, ver. 4, as the λιμός concurs with the famine, vv. 5, 6; on the contrary, 
such means to kill are to be ascribed to Death personally portrayed with Hell, 
as already in the O. T. are threatened as destructive means of punishment 
prior to God’s judgment. Because of the juxtaposition of ἐν θανάτῳ with ἐν 
ῥομφαίᾳ and ἐν λιμῷ, the θανάτῳ is readily taken specially as a designation of 
the plague, especially as the LXX., in similar connections, use θάνατος where 
the Heb. text has 133;7 but if John had wished to designate this precise 
idea, the expression λοιμός ὃ would scarcely have escaped him. As in 11. 29, 
the general conception must be maintained also in this passage,? which also 
appears the more suitable as the ἐν θανάτῳ occurs in a certain exclusive way 
to the two preceding conceptions which are likewise furnished with the prep. 
ἐν, while the attached ὑπὸ τ. θηρίων τ. y.. aS also the change of prep. shows, 
connects it again with a certain independence to the three preceding concep- 
tions. [See Note XLIX., p. 235.] 

Vv. 9-11. We might expect that also the fifth seal would bring a vision 
of the same kind as the three preceding seals and the one succeeding; viz., 
a representation of such dispensations of God as proclaimed and prepared 
the final coming of the Lord. Those expositors who, in all the individual 
members of the Apoc., find only individual prophecies of definite events in 
the history of the world and the Church, have interpreted the contents of the 
fifth seal also accordingly. If, e.g., according to Vitr., the fourth seal has 
introduced us to the appearance of the Saracens, the fifth seal speaks of the 
times of the Waldenses, and extends to the century of the Reformation. 
The martyrs who cry for vengeance are the Waldenses, Albigenses, etc. 
The white robes given them designate their vindication by the Reformation, 
even though, ere the final judgment come, this, too, must deliver up its 
martyrs (ver. 11). Bengel knew how to find the same reference, even by a 
computation; for if in the year A.D. 97 or 98, in which John received his 
revelation, the martyrs who were slain by heathen Rome cried for vengeance, 
and it was told them that they must wait yet “a chronus,” i.e., a space of 


1 Hengstenb. 3 2 Beng., Ew. 6 Matth., Ausfiihr. Griech. Gramm., ὃ 592. 
3 viii. 7. 7 Vitr., Beng., De Wette, etc. 
4°Cf. ii. 16. 8 Matt. xxiv. 7. 


5 Cf. Ew., De Wette. 9 Hengstenb., Ebrard. 


228 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
1,111} years, their fellow-servants who were afterwards to become martyrs 
(through Papal Rome) are the Waldenses of the year 1208 (i.e., 97 + 1111). 
The meaning of the fifth seal-vision in connection with that preceding 
and following, and corresponding with the idea of the entire book, does not 
lie in the fact that any special future event is prophesied, whereof the pre- 
ceding seals treat as little as those which follow; but in that both the cry 
of the souls of the martyrs for vengeance on account of the shedding of 
their blood, and also the answer given them, stand in most definite relation 
to what is even in the seal-visions, the invariable goal of Apocalyptic proph- 
ecy, viz., the prophetic announcement that the Lord cometh. Already the 
circumstance, that, to the gazing prophet, the martyrs whose blood has been 
shed show themselves, contains a sign of the coming of the Lord.) But if — 
the martyrs cry for vengeance, there is in this a certainty that a day of 
judgment is impending, which their unbelieving persecutors have called 
forth by their ungodly deeds. Finally, the divine answer (ver. 11) contains 
the certain assurance of the future final judgment; it is only added thereto, 
that all they who, like those already offered, are to endure the martyr’s 
death, must first be slain, and, consequently, the sign of the final judgment 
already fulfilled on those crying for vengeance be fulfilled also on these. In 
its more immediate relation to the preceding seal-visions, the present men- 
tions, that, after the fulfilment of what is announced in ver. 8, the final judg- 
ment will not immediately follow; but the meaning of the fifth seal is stated 
too narrowly, and regarded too unimportant, if thereby we only find some- 
thing expressed which is self-evident already from the preceding visions.? 
Εἶδον ὑποκάτω τοῦ θυσιαστηριοῦ τάς ψυχὰς, x.7.A, The question, how John 
could have seen the souls, is asked only when it is forgotten that it is nota 
seeing of sense, but of a vision, which is here treated; the explanation that 
the souls had a body is not only false, but also entirely unnecessary. — 
That the altar under which* John sees the souls of those slain is to be 
regarded after the manner of an earthly burnt-offering,® is indicated espe- 
cially by the éogayyévov, —the uniform word for the slaying of animals for 
sacrifice, — and the αἶμα, ver. 10, as it is accordingly also the expression of 
the whole, affording what is simplest, and, in every respect, most applicable. 
As the blood of the sacrifices was sprinkled at the foot of the altar of burnt- 
offerings,® so also those souls who have offered themselves to the Lord? are 
under the altar, upon which they can be represented as offered in a way very 
similar to that in which, in viii. 3 sq., the prayers of saints on earth appear 
as a heavenly offering of incense. But it is incorrect, when De Wette fully 
explains this passage from viii. 3 sqq., by regarding the altar in this place 


1 Matt. xxiv. 9; cf. ver.7, whose contents we 
have found in the second, third, and fourth 
seals. 2 Against Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

3 “ὁ Tnvested with a subtile body,’’ Eich. 
Beng. incorrectly, ‘‘ Beside the 
altar, and beneath its ground,”’ for the type of 
Ley. iv. 7 cannot change the meaning of the 
expression in this passage. 


4 ὁ 4 
UTOKaTO. 


δ Grot., Vitr., Beng., Ew., Hengstenb., 
Ebrard. 

6 t10°-bx, Lev. iv. 7. 
βάσιν, ἐπὶ τ. B., v. 9. 

7 Cf. Phil. ii. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 6. Ignat., Zp. 
ad Rom., 11. iv.: one who goes to meet a mar- 
tyr’s death will become a θυσία. 


LXX.: παρὰ τὴν 


CHAP. VI. 9-11. 229 


as an incense-altar, “beneath which the souls of the martyrs lie, because 
they are awaiting the hearing of the prayers which are offered in the in- 
cense.” The latter reference of the ὑποκάτω τ. θυσ., in itself strange, is, 
besides, in no way based upon viii. 8. The occasion because of which the 
souls are regarded under the altar is given by the fact that the blood of 
sacrifices, to which the martyrs are regarded as belonging, was shed under 
the altar. But hence it does not follow, that by the expression τ, ψυχὰς τ. 
éog., nothing else properly is designated than blood, the bearer of physical — 
life, and that the entire representation is only a dramatizing of the thought: 
Their blood demands vengeance, according to Gen. iv. 10;1 the souls are 
here, without doubt, as xx. 4, the spirits of those whose bodies have been 
slain upon earth.2— Without any support are the allegorizing interpretations 
of ὑποκάτω τ. θυσ., aS “in the communion of Christ.”? It is also utterly con- 
trary to the meaning of the entire vision, if any dogmatic result be derived 
concerning the abode of souls after death, in connection with which the 
ὑποκατ. τ. Ovo. is, With complete arbitrariness, variously interpreted: “in the 
solitary place of eternal praise ;” 4 “reserved as to their bodies until the day 
of judgment, in the most holy place.”® What has been cited in this respect 
from rabbinical writings,® corresponds not even as to the form of the concep- 
tion. — διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἣν εἶχον͵ Already it has been 
noted on i. 9, that as τ. θεοῦ belongs to τ. λόγον, just so the ᾿Ιησοῦ placed there 
and in xil. 17, xix. 10, xx. 4, with τ. μαρτυρίαν, is not an objective but a sub- 
jective gen. Accordingly the μαρτυρία in this passage is not to be under- 
stood as a testimony borne by the martyrs and sealed with their blood,® 
but as one given them.® This is required, even apart from the parallelism 
of the preceding τ, Aoy. τ. @., by the addition ἣν εἶχον, whereby the idea is pre- 
supposed that the martyrs have first received? the μαρτυρία “which they 
had.” 10 [See Note L., p. 235.] Cf. the similar τηρεῖν, xii. 17; John xiv. 21. 
The ἡ μαρτυρία (Ἰησοῦ) is here identical, therefore, with that of i. 9, and 
throughout the entire Apoc. it remains generally unchanged; but in this 
passage the ἐσφαγμ. and the addition ἣν εἶχον entirely change the force of 
the διά from what the same word has in i. 9, because of an entirely different 
connection. — ἔκραξαν. That it is not precisely the ai ψυχαὶ τῶν éod.,1 but, 
according to a very easy mode of presentation, rather οἱ ἐσφαγμένοι, which is 
regarded as subject,/? follows not necessarily from the masc. λέγοντες,18 but 
indeed from the entire mode of expression, vv. 10, 11.14— ὡς καὶ αὐτοί. For 
this, of course, Hengstenb.’s false interpretation of τ. ψυχάς, ver. 9, affords no 
aid, — φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, cf. 1. 10. -- Ἕως πότε. 2 Ψ, 1 Sam. xvi. 1; οἵ. Hab. i. 2; 


1 Ziill., Hengstenb. 2 Matt. x. 28. 
3 Vitr., Calov., Boss., etc. 
4 Beda. 5 Zeger. 


6 Debarim, R. xi.: ““ God said to the soul of 
Moses, ‘I will place thee under the throne of 
my glory.’”’ 

7 Cf. xii. 17: τ. ἐντολάς. 

8 = μαρτ. περὶ Ἰησοῦ. Cf. Acts xxii.18. So 
the older expositors; also Ew. i., De Wette, 
Bleek. 


9 Viz., of the Lord Jesus, who himself has 
testified tothem. Cf. Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

10 Ewald, incorrectly: ‘* which they firmly 
held.” 

11 Ebrard. 

12 Hengstenb. 

13 Cf, iv. 8. 

14 αἷμα nu.—avrois ἑκάστῳ Epp. — avTOLS — οἱ 
συνδ. αὐτ. κ. οἱ ἀδελφ. aut. 


280 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

Ps. xiii. 2, Ixxix. 5. Every attempt to supply! breaks the immediate con- 
nection with οὐ κρίνεις, «.7.4. — ὁ δεσπότης. On the voc. use of the nom., see 
Winer, p. 172. The correlate to δεσποτῆς ---- the expression only here in the 
Apoc. —is dodAoc.2 All belonging to the Lord are his servants; hence 
the future martyrs are called σύνδουλοι. Cf. also xix. 10. The one meant 
as “Lord” is not Christ,4 but God. “The martyrs cry to God as their 
owner.”® But because he is this, there can be no doubt that the punish- 
ment here expected ® has begun; only the question ἕως πότε, «.7.2., proceeds 
from the longing of the martyrs for that judgment. And the martyrs may 
the more confidently expect that judgment from their Lord, as he is ἅγιος 
and ἀληθινός. His holiness’ is the essential ground from which the δίκαιαι 
κρίσεις ® energetically proceed. But it is improper to refer the ἀληθινός, which 
is exchanged with ἀληθής, to God’s truthfulness or fidelity to his promises,® 
while, on the other hand, God is called ὁ δεσπ. ὁ ἀληθινός, because he is the 
Lord who in truth deserves this name, the “true Lord,” !° who, therefore, 
will also doubtless do in every respect as is fitting for such a Lord to do 
to his faithful servants. [See Note LI., p. 236.] οὐ κρίνεις καὶ ἐκδικεῖς, x.7.A. 
Concerning the following ἐκ,11} cf. xviii. 20, xix. 2; Ps. xlili. 1; 1 Sam. xxiv. 
13.12 The dwellers “on the earth ” 3° are here, by virtue of the connection," 
according to the generic view, “all nations,” 15 in contrast with the servants 
of God.16— Concerning the ethical estimation of the expressed longing of 
the martyrs, which contains neither censurable impatience nor a vindictive 
feeling, Beda already remarked: “These things they did not pray from 
hatred towards enemies for whom in this world they entreated, but from 
love of justice with which they agree as those placed near the Judge him- 
self.” 17 Especially in accordance with the text, Beng. says, “ They have to 
do with the glory of the holiness and truth of their Lord.” What the 
martyrs express as their longing, is in reality pledged by the fact that their 
δεσπότης 18 ἅγιος καὶ ἀληθινός ; the κρίνειν and ἐκδικεῖν are the infallible attestation 
of his nature, which has been just before praised. But the longing which 
the martyrs express in their way is, in its foundation, nothing else than that 
which belongs to the entire Church.18 — καὶ ἐδόθη ---- στολὴ λευκῆ. The singular 
στολὴ A., Which even with the mere αὐτοῖς would not be irregular,! is immedi- 
ately afterwards made necessary by the expressly individualized éxéorw. — 
The opinion that by the offering of the white robe,?° something peculiar is to 
be communicated to the souls of martyrs, besides the blessedness which is 


1 N. de Lyra: quies. 

2 Cf. Luke ii. 29; 1 Tim. vi. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 18. 

5, 1. 

4 Vitr.; Grot., who, besides, with utter inap- 
propriateness remarks, ‘‘ All this dispensation 
of patience and severity in regard to the Jews 
has been delivered to Christ.’’ 

5 Beng.; cf. Ew., etc. 

6 And celebrated in its fulfilment, in xix. 2. 
7 “* Because he cannot endure crimes,” Vitr., 
Ew. 

8 Of xix. ὃν 

9 Vitr., Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb. 


10 Cf, iii. 14. 

=). Cf. Ew., Gr. d. hebr. Spr., § 519. 

12 Luke xviii. 3: ἀπό, as the var. of this 
passage. 

13 Grot., incorrectly: ‘in Judza.” — 

14 Cf. xiii. 8, 14. 

15 Matt. xxiv. 9. 

16 Cf. Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

17 Cf. N. de Lyra, C. a Lap., Calov., Beng., 
Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

18 Cf. xxii. 17, 20. 

19 Winer, p. 164. 

20 Cf. iii. 5. 


CHAP. VI. 9-11. 231 


self-evident, is not only in itself indefinite, — for, what is this special reward 
to be ?— but is also contrary to the context; not because this giving of white 
garments, as also the entire scene vv. 9-11, is nothing more than “a poetic 
fiction,” 2— for the fifth seal-vision is this no more than are the rest, — but, 
because the giving occurs within the vision, it is an integrant part of the 
vision, and not an objective, real fact. The consideration that the souls of 
martyrs are already blessed, and, therefore, as all the blessed, they wear 
already white garments,’ is therefore entirely out of place, because dependent 
upon a μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος." — As the gift of the white robe designates the 
already present blessedness and glorification of those who have been offered 
for the sake of Christ, so also the fulfilment of their prayer is promised 
them in the final revelation of the Lord’s judgment which is to be awaited, 
but, of course, in such a way that they are to wait for it in their blessed 
repose until the end which is no longer distant (ver. 11). — καὶ ἐῤῥέθη αὐτοῖς 
iva, x.7.A. Concerning the iva, cf. Winer, p. 314 sqq. — ἀναπαύσωνται desig- 
nates not the mere cessation from the cry (ver. 10),° but has the more 
complete sense of the blessed rest, as xiv. 19,5 which, as also the white robe 
indicates, has been imparted to the martyrs, after having struggled in their 
earthly life, even unto death, and overcome.’ —ér: χρόνον μικρὸν. Bengel’s 
reckoning concerning the length of the “chronus” is thwarted already by 
the correct reading, yp. uwxpdv,2 whose meaning corresponds with the entire 
view of the Αροο.ϑ ---- ἕως πληρωθῶσιν, «.7.A. A definition of the “little season” 
from its actual contents, and at the same time in accord with the preceding 
question ἕως πότε, «.7.2., ver. 10. The relation according to the context of 
πληρωθῶσιν comprises the words οἱ μελλ. droxt., x.7.A.: “ should be fulfilled,” viz., 
as to their number,!° must be only those who are still to suffer a martyr’s 
death, just as the number of those who in ver. 10 have called is already 
full. The completeness is therefore not to be understood of that sum and 
these martyrs, but to be limited to the future martyrs. Thus this explana- 
tion of πληρωθ. is simpler and more significant than that preferred by De 
Wette, according to whom πληροῦσθαι 12 means either only “to finish life,” or 
at the same time is to have the secondary sense of a moral fulfilling.1%. 
Hengstenb. adopts the easier reading zAnpdowow.14—oi σύνδουλοι αὐτων. Beng., 
incorrectly : “ The first martyrs were mostly of Israel; their fellow-servants 
were, in following times, from the heathen, their brethren outside of Israel.” 
The future martyrs are rather fellow-servants of those mentioned in ver. 9 
sqq-, because of their identical relation to the δεσπότης (ver. 10), than 
brethren because of the fellowship of all believers with one another.’© The 
καὶ before οἱ cvvd. marks the fate impending also over the fellow-servants; the 
succeeding καὶ serves as a simple connective of a still further designation.’® 


1 Beng. 2 Hengstenb. 10 Wolf, Ebrard. 

3 Cf. vii. 13 sqq. 11 Against De Wette’s objection. 

4 « Transition to another class.”’ 12 Cf. Zech. iv. 13: τελειοῦσθαι. 

5 Beng., De Wette. 13 Of. Heb. xi. 40, xii. 23: τελειοῦσθαι. Cf. 
6 Cf. also Mark vi. 21, xiv. 41. also Vitr. 

7 Cf. Hengstenb. 14 Sc. τὸν δρόμον, Acts xx. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 7. 
8 See Critical Notes. 15 De Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 


® Cf., especially, i. 1-3. 16 De Wette, etc. 


232 THE REVELATION OF ST JOHN. | 

Ver. 12-17. The sixth seal-vision. As the visions portrayed, vv. 3-8, 
have presented the signs of his coming, announced by the Lord himself in 
his eschatological discourse (Matt. xxiv. 6 sqq.), and as, also, the fifth seal- 
vision stands in close connection with Matt. xxiv. 9, so the sixth vision 
brings what is found in Matt. xxiv. 7 (σεισμοὶ κατὰ τόπους), and especially 
the signs predicted in ver. 29, which? refer to the immediate entrance of the 
day of judgment itself.2 Incorrect, therefore, because of the connection with 
what precedes, not only does that explanation appear to be, according to 
which the entire description, vv. 12-17, refers to the Jewish-Roman war, and 
the “ great day of wrath,” ver. 17, is regarded as nothing else than the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem ;* but, also, that which seems to be directly the opposite, 
yet which actually depends upon a similarly arbitrary treatment, as well as 
also, in many particular interpretations, the harmonious exposition of allegor- 
izing expositors from Victorin. to Hengstenberg,* who in the earthquake, the 
darkening of the sun, etc., find figurative prophecies of certain events per- 
taining to the development of the Church, etc. If the reference of the 
entire vision be limited to the destruction of Jerusalem, it is, of course, more 
natural in ver. 12 (ὁ mA. ἐγ. μελ., «.7.4.) to think of an eclipse of the sun 
and moon at the time of Claudius,’ than, with Bohmer, to interpret sun and 
moon as prophecy and the law; but even Grot. cannot adequately represent 
the context, since he refers to the falling of the stars, ver. 13, as a prognos- 
tic of terrible events derived from the notions of the time, and on ὁ οὐρανὸς 
ἀπεχ., k.7.A., he has to remark: “ Because of thick clouds, the heavens cannot 
be seen.” ® In arbitrariness of allegorical interpretation, Bohmer’ vies with 
Victorin., Beda, Vitr., Hengstenb., etc. The earthquake, ver. 12, is made to 
signify “great revolutions in political or ecclesiastical spheres; ”*® the sun 
becoming black is intended to be “the blasphemed Christ,” ® “ prophecy,” 10 
“worldly emperors and kings; ” 11 the blood-red moon, “ the Church reddened 
by the blood of martyrs,” 12. “the law,” 18 “spiritual princes ;” 14 the fallen 
stars, “the fallen, exalted church-teachers,” 15 the “ Jews who desert the true 
Church for corrupt Judaism, which is signified by the earth;” 1° the moun- 
. tains and islands are “prophets and philosophical pursuits,” }" etc. The 
whole refers, according to Vitr., to the destruction of the papal dominion, and 
the fearful disturbances in the political governments of Europe which were 
attached to the Papacy.1® Hengstenb. is distinguished from these interpreters 
only by indecision. The earthquake, the eclipse of sun and moon, the falling 
of the stars, etc., are to him figurative of “grievous and disturbed times,” 
which impend by God’s judgment over his enemies. “ Heaven,” e.g., he says 


1 Cf. vv. 16, 17, with Matt. xxiv. 30 sqq.; 9. N. de Lyra, Aret. 
Luke xxiii. 30. ‘10 Bohm. 
2 Cf. Ew., De Wette, Ebrard. 11 Vitr. 
8 Grot., Wetst., Alcas., Herd., BGhmer. . 12 N. de Lyra, Aret. 
4 Cf. Beda, N. de Lyra, Aret., Zeger, Vitr., 13 Bohm. 
etc. 14 Vitr. 
5 Grot. 15 N. de Lyra, Aret., Vitr. 
6 Cf. also Eich. 16 Bohm. 
7 Cf. Alcas., etc. 17 Aret. 


8 Bohm., Vitr. 18 Cf. xvi. 17 aq. 


CHAP. VI. 12-17. 233 


on ver. 13, “is the heaven of princes, the entire magisterial and sovereign 
estate. The stars are individual princes and nobles.” This figurative ex- 
planation is regarded as necessary “ because the falling from heaven of the 
stars, generally so called, would destroy every thing, while, in what follows, 
the races of the earth appear as still existing; ” to which Ebrard objects: 
“ The shaking down is only from the standpoint of the appearance to human 
vision; while the human eye sees the stars sinking as stars to earth, yet must 
they in reality sink, and pass far from the earth in the void expanse.” 

The context itself should have been a sufficient protection from all these 
aberrations; for here, just as in the preceding seal-visions, the simple admo- 
nition is entirely valid, that every thing portrayed in vv. 12-17 is the sub- 
ject of a vision, and not something objectively real. In the vision, John 
beholds as the stars fall to the earth (εἰς τ. γην, not “in the expanse”). The 
- consideration, how after such an event men can still live upon earth, is here 
utterly strange, and contrary to the context. For the sixth seal-vision con- 
cludes with the express testimony, that—as also its entire contents, in 
harmony with Matt. xxiv. 27 sqq., indicate — the day of final judgment has 
come, and is now present.! There is, therefore, actually, —i.e., if that 
which was shown in vv. 12-17 in vision to the gazing prophet occurred at 
the end of days, — no further life of the human race on this earth any longer 
possible, as, with the destruction of the world (vv. 12 sqq.), the day of the 
Lord begins. The signs are made known: ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν ἐπὶ θύραις.2 Already 
also the unbelieving note that the day of wrath has come (ver. 15 sqq.). 
It may accordingly be expected that the seventh seal is opened immediately 
after ver. 17; and thus to the seer is shown the judgment itself, with its 
condemning and its beatifying influence. That this does not happen now,? . 
but that first of all ch. vii. is still placed before the seventh seal, and that 
then, again, the last seal itself brings an entire series of visions, can inter- 
fere with the clear meaning of the sixth seal-vision the less, as the further 
development has the correct meaning just as it has been given. 

σεισμός. AS xi. 13, xvi. 18, vill. 5.6 Earthquake; ὁ not indefinitely, “ trem- 
bling,”? for it is not at all said that by this σεισμός the heavens shall be 
shaken. —d¢ σάκκος tpixwoc. Cf. Isa. 1. 8. -- ὡς aiva. Cf. Joel 111. 4. --- τ. 
ὀλύνθους. Hesych: ὄλυνθος, τὸ μὴ πεπαμμένον συκονὃ Cf. Cant. ii. 13. 0°39, 
Winer, Rwb., B. 1., 429.—6 οὐρανὸς απεχωρίσθη ὡς βιβλίον ἑλισσόμενον. ΟἿ. 
Isa. xxxiv. 4. The idea that the firmament itself, from which the stars 
fall,® gradually vanishes,!° is illustrated by the rolling-together of a book, 
since the heaven, the firmament, appears stretched out like tent-canvas.! — 

- πᾶν ὄρος, x.7.A. As in xvi. 20, a quaking is indicated, overthrowing the foun- 
. dations of the earth, and therefore final: no mountain, no island, remains 
on its old place. The destruction is complete. — Also, thereby, that terror 


1 ἦλθεν, ν. 17. 2 Matt. xxiv. 33. 6 Hengstenb. 
3 Although in fact from the seventh seal, 7 De Wette. 

the entire rest of the prophecy, even that of 8 ὄλυνθος, the fig not ripened. 

the final judgment corresponding to the funda- 9 Cf. Gen. i. 14 sqq. 

mental plan of v. 1 sqq., proceeds. 10 Departs: amex. Vulg.: recessit. Incor- 
4 Cf. Introd., sec. 1, and on ch. vii. 8. rectly, Ew. ii.: ‘“ was rent in a place.” 


5 Cf. Isa. xiii. 13. 11 Isa. xl. 22; Ps. civ. 2. 


234 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

now seizes (ver. 15) all, without exception, who have to fear the judgment; 
and by the way in which they make known their amazement (ver. 16 sqq.),_ 
especially by the express words ὅτε ἦλθεν, x.7.2., it is clearly indicated that the 
subject from ver. 12 is the opening of the final judgment. — οἱ βασιλεῖς, «.7.2. 
The κατοικοῦντες ἐπι τῆς γῆς, in the sense of ver. 10, is here, as in xix. 18, so 
introduced, that they appear not only collectively,! but that the significant 
classification, at the same time, proves how no kind of earthly greatness or 
power, the previous cause of insolent assurance, can afford any protection 
whatever.?, Kings share the anguish with the humblest slaves.2 In addi- 
tion to βασιλεῖς τ. y., the proper rulers, οἱ μεγιστᾶνες, are first mentioned. The 
expression, belonging to the later Greek,® presents here ® high civil officers, 
especially courtiers,’ in distinction from chief commanders (χιλίαρχοι). In 
addition to the πλούσιοι, distinguished by wealth, are the ἰσχυροι,8 not “the 
mighty of every kind,” 5 but?° such as excel in physical strength 11 — éxpuwav 
--- ὀρέων. Those alarmed, even unto despair, seek in the mountains and rocks 
not so much ineffectual protection, as rather, as their own words show,}8 
death through which to escape the impending judgment of wrath.14— ἀπὸ 
προσώπου τοῦ καθ., x.7.A. The style is of such kind as to bear without doubt 
in ver. 16, as well as in ver. 17, traces of John’s own peculiar feeling. The 
ἀπὸ προσώπου 15 is biblical; the τ. καθημ. ἐπὶ τ. 6p. and the opy. τ. dpriov refer 
back to ch. iv. 5; the expression ἡ ju. 7 wey. τ. 6. avr. depends upon Joel iii. 
4,i. 15, ii. 2, Isa. lxiii. 4, etc.; and the question τίς δυν. σταθῆναι, on Nah. i. 6, 
Mal. iii. 2.16 Yet the entire discourse, even though ver. 17 be not regarded 
the words of John, has its truth in the mouth of unbelievers, since, just as 
they must recognize the Lord himself when he will appear, so also will 
they discern in the terrible signs (ver. 12 sqq.) the commencement of the 
day of judgment. 


NoTEs BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XLVIII. Wer. 2. ἵππος λευκός. 


Luthardt: ‘‘ That is, the Word of God, which was the first in the history of 
N. T. times to pass victoriously through the world, and whose words flew far 
like arrows, and penetrated the heart (Ps. xlv. 6).”’ Alford: ‘‘ The νικῶν might 
be said of any victorious earthly power whose victories should endure for the 
time then present, and afterwards pass away; but the ἵνα νικῆσῃ can only be said 
of a power whose victories are to last forever. ... We must not, on the one 


9 Ebrard; “ prevailing ininfluence,” Ewald. 
10... “xix.-18,) Wo, 2) xX. 4, xvill'8, 21) algo 


1 Cf. Matt. xxv. 82: πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. 
2 Klief. understands from erroneous pre- 


suppositions (see on i. 20) ‘*no blind heathen, 
but the masses of baptized nations who have 
fallen into Laodicean feelings.” 

3 Cf. also Bengel, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

4 Cf. Acts iv. 26. 

5 xviii. 23; Mark vi. 21; ef. LXX. Jer. xiv. 
8; Neh. iii. 10; Isa. xxxiv. 12; Dan. v. 1. 

6 Cf. Mark vi. 51; Dan. v. 1. 

7 Ebrard, ete. 

8 Var.: δυνατά. 


τ 2510; xix. 6. 

11 Cf. Ps. xxxiii. 16 sqq., exlvii. 10; Ew. ii.; 
warriors, according to Jos. x. 2; 1 Kings xi. 28. 

12 Cf. Isa. ii. 10 sqq. 

13 ver. 16; cf. Hos. x. 8; Luke xxiii. 30. 

14 Cf. Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

15 Beng.: ‘‘The face against them that do 
evil,’’ Ps. xxxiv. 17. 

16 Cf. Ewald, etc. 

17 Cf. i. 7. 


NOTES. 235 


hand, too hastily introduce the person of our Lord himself; or, on the other, be 
startled at the objection that we shall be paralleling him, or one closely resem- 
bling him, with the far different forms which follow. Doubtless, the resemblance 
to the rider in xix. 11 is very close, and is intended to be very close. The differ- 
ence, however, is considerable. There he is set forth as present in his triumph, 
followed by the hosts of heaven: here he is working in bodily absence, and the 
rider is not himself, but only a symbo! of his victorious power, the embodiment 
of his advancing kingdom as regards that side of its progress where it breaks 
down earthly power, and makes the kingdom of the world to be the kingdom of 
our Lord and his Christ. Further, it would not be wise, nor, indeed, according 
to the analogy of these visions, to specify. In all cases but the last, these riders 
are left in the vagueness of their symbolic offices. If we attempt, in this case, 
to specify further, e.g., as Victorinus: ‘The white horse is the word of preach- 
ing sent with the Holy Spirit into the world. For the Lord says, This gospel 
shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and then shall 
the end come,’ — while we are sure that we are thus far right, we are but 
partially right, seeing that there are other aspects and instruments of victory 
of the kingdom of Christ besides the preaching of the word.’’ If the word 
“*preaching”’ be limited to public discourses, or even to the public reading and 
private study of the word, Alford is quite right. But just as the sacraments 
are only the visible word, and are efficacious because of the word of God joined 
with them, so every agency for the diffusion of Christ’s kingdom may be reduced 
to the word of God under some form. Gebhardt (p. 238) regards the rider on 
the white horse as a personification of victorious war. His objection to the 
view adopted by Dusterdieck, that the Lamb could not have opened the seals, 
and at the same time have been represented in what the seal portrays, is not 
very formidable, and, at most, would not interfere with the conception above 
proposed of the Word as rider. 


XLIX. Vv. 2-8. 


Alford regards the four seals, in their fulness, as contemporaneous, the iva 
νικήσῃ not being accomplished until the entire earth is subjugated, although 
**they may receive continually recurring, or even ultimate, fulfilments, as the 
ages of the world go on, in distinct periods of time, and by distinctly assignable 
events. So far, we may derive benefit from the commentaries of those who 
imagine that they have discovered their fulfilment in successive periods of 
history, that, from the very variety and discrepancy of the periods assigned by 
them, we may verify the facts of the prevalence of these announced judgments 
hitherto, throughout the whole lifetime of the Church.’’ 


L. Ver. 9. τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἣν εἶχον. 


The interpretation of our author is thus criticised by Lange: ‘‘ There is an 
exegetical obscureness here. The testimony is a specific term, The gospel 
which a man receives from Christ is not, in itself, a specific testimony or 
witness. It becomes testimony by faithful confession; and then, doubtless, 
Christ confesses himself to the man by whom he is confessed. Here, however, 
the holding fast of confessors to their confession is denoted.’? So Alford: ‘* The 
testimony is one borne by them, as most commentators; not one borne to them 


236 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


by the faithful Witness, as Diisterdieck and Ebrard most unnaturally; for how 
could the testimony borne to them before the Father, by Christ, be the cause of 
their being put to death on earth ?”’ 


LI. Ver. 10. ἀληθινός. 


Liddell and Scott give, as the ordinary meaning of this word in classical 
Greek, when applied to persons, ‘‘ truthful, trusty.’’? So, in Cremer, the second 
and very frequent meaning: ‘‘ That which does not deceive, which bears test- 
ing.”? ‘‘ Here it is too evidently intended of subjective truthfulness, for the 
other meaning even to be brought into question; and it is wonderful that Dust. 
should have insisted on it.” 


CHAP, VII. 237 


CHAPTER VII. 


Ver. 1. Μετὰ ταῦτα, The καὶ (8) prefixed in the rec. is properly deleted by 
Lach., in accordance with A, C, Vulg., al. Tisch. has retained it here, but not 
in xviii. 1, xix. 1. In the rec. also, it is lacking in ver. 9, iv. 1. Yet it is 
certain in xv. 5. — The form ταῦτα (Elz.) is attested, of course, only by the Vulg., 
while the τοῦτο, approved by Lach., Tisch., has the preponderating witnesses 
(A, C, 8, 2, 4, 6, al.) in its favor; but the plural stands in all similar passages 
(De Wette). On the other hand, the πᾶν before δένδρον (x, rec., Tisch. IX.), in 
spite of the analogy of ix. 4, xxi. 27 (De Wette), must yield to the unexpected, 
but, indeed, well-attested, τι devdp. (Lach., Tisch.), to which also the emendation 
τινι δένδρῳ (19, Wetst.) points. — Ver. 2. ἀναβαίνοντα. So already Beng., Griesb., 
Matth., according to all witnesses. Incorrectly, Elz.: ἀναβάντα. ---- Ver. 3. ἄχρι 
ogpay. A, Ο, κα, 12, Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Without witnesses: ἄχρις 
οὗ o¢p. — Ver. 5. ἐσφραγισμένοι, according to the preponderating witnesses, belongs 
only in the first member of ver. 5, and at the close of ver. 8 (Lach., Tisch.). — 
Ver. 9. eidov ὄχλον πολύν. So Lach., in accord with A, Vulg., Primas, Cypr. 
Tisch. with Elz. has written εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ὄχλος πολύς (8), for which C is cited, 
whose authority, however, with respect to this passage, is weakened by the 
evident emendation of the ἑστῶτες into ἑστώτων (cf. the variations ἑστῶτας, ἑστῶτα, 
in Wetst.).— Ver. 11. Instead of ἑστήκεσαν (Elz.), either ἑστῆκεισαν (Beng., 
Tisch.), or more probably, as Matt. xii. 46 (cf. Tisch., ed. vii.), εἱστήκεισαν 
(Matt., Lach., Tisch. IX.) is to be read. The latter form occurs in 6, 14, 16, 27, 
28, Compl., al. (Wetst.), and in four codd. in Matt. A has, according to Lach., 
ἑστηκείσαν; C: ἑστήκισαν; &: ἵστηκισαν. Wetst. cites A, C, 2, al., for ἑστήκεισαν 
[W. and H.: ἱστήκεισαν]. ---- Ver. 14. After κύριε, a μου is inserted in the rec., in 
accord with the decisive witnesses, by Beng., Griesb., Matth. The reading 
received by Lach., ἀπὸ θλίψεως μεγάλης, is, indeed, attested by A; but there is 
reason to suspect that the reading ἐκ τῆς 6A. τῆς wey. (τὲ, Elz., Tisch. [W. and H.]) 
has been changed, because the restriction of the θλῖψις required by the art. 
appeared difficult. — After ἐλεύκαναν, neither στολὰς αὐτῶν (Elz. [W. and H.]) nor 
αὐτὰς (A, &, Vulg., Lach., Tisch. IX.) is to be read. Beng., Matth., Tisch., 
aJready have rejected the repeated designation of the object. — Ver. 17. ζωῆς. 
So, according to decided witnesses, Beng., Griesb., Matth., al., N. The ζώσας 
(Elz.) is a modification. Instead of ἀπὸ τ. οφθ. (8, Elz., Matth.), read ἐκ (A, Ὁ, 
2, 4, al., Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). 


After the conclusion of the sixth seal-vision, and before the description 
of the final judgment itself, to be expected in the seventh seal, whose imme- 
diate signs are presented in the sixth seal, although already the executors 
of this final storm of judgment, directed against the entire earth, stand pre- 
pared for their work (ver. 1), “the one hundred and forty-four thousand ser- 
vants of God” (ver. 3) who are of Israel, are first sealed with a ‘‘ seal of the 


Φ 


238 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


living God” (vv. 1-8). Afterwards, in the second part of ch. vii. (vv. 9-17), 
John beholds in a new vision an innumerable company from all men (ver. 9), 
in white robes and with palms in their hands, who stand before the throne 
of God and of the Lamb, and unite with all the angels in songs of praise. 
According to the express interpretation of ver. 13 sqq., they are such as 
“have come out of great tribulation,” and who, as a reward for their fidelity 
to their faith, in which they have victoriously endured great tribulation, are 
refreshed with heavenly joy before God and the Lamb. 

The meaning of ch. 7, as a whole, depends less upon the correct expo- 
sition of details, than in general upon the correct statement of the intention 
and plan of the Apoc. Hence the following chief points must be firmly 
maintained, which must receive their full justification by the explanation of 
each several verse : — 

1. The view of Vitringa is incorrect, that, as vi. 12-17 describes the first 
part of the sixth seal-vision, so vii. 1-8 describes its second, and vii. 9-17 
its third part.1_ For not only is the section vi. 12-17 perfectly complete in 
itself, and, as to its contents, homogeneous with the preceding seal-visions, 
while in ch. vii. such matters are represented as, because of their entirely 
diiferent nature, belong not to the seal-visions vi. 12 sqq.; but the vision vii. 
1 sqq., and the succeeding ver. 9 sqq., are expressly distinguished from what 
precedes, by the formula μετὰ ταῦτα ed.2 Ch. vii., therefore, contains an epi- 
sode,? inasmuch as it enters with a certain independence between the sixth 
and seventh seals (viii. 1 sqq.); in both its parts, two pure visions, imme- 
diately presented to the prophet, occur, which do not proceed from a seal. — 
2. The question now arises, whether the twofold vision has its reference to 
what precedes, — whether to the sixth seal,‘ or the fifth,® or all six,6—or 
to what follows, and what meaning belongs to the entire ch. vii. in its order 
and contents. The answer to this question depends essentially upon what 
meaning is attached to the act of sealing, and what relation the one hun- 
dred and forty-four thousand sealed (vv. 1-8) are regarded as holding to the 
innumerable multitude (vv. 9-17). It is a constant assumption of exposi- 
tors, —as well of those who identify the sealed with the innumerable multi- 
tude, as those also who make a distinction, — that the sealing has as its 
purpose, to establish the sealed before the impending visitations, so that they 
may not, like unbelievers, experience them.? An appeal is made for this to 
Exod. xii. 7, 138; Ezek. ix. 4 sqq.; Rev. ix. 4. But this traditional inter- 
pretation is not correct. In neither Exod. xii. nor Ezek. ix. is there any 
thing said of a σφραγίζειν, but of a sign (σημεῖον), which, whether it be applied 
to the houses (Exod. xii.), or the foreheads of men (Ezek. ix.), has as its 
expressly designated end to assure those thus marked of the impending 
judgment. Undoubtedly the seal pressed upon the foreheads (vv. 2, 3) 
could be a σημεῖον given for a like purpose; but that this is actually the case, 


1 Cf. also C.a La 6 Hengstenb. 

2 Cf. already Beng. ΤΟ. a Lap., Stern, Vitr., Beng., Eichh., 

8 EHichh., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Heinr., Ew. i., De Wette, Bleek, also his Jn- 
etc. troduction to the N. T., p. 610, Hengstenb., 


# Vitr. 5 Ewald. Ebrard, Hilgenfeld, etc. 


CHAP. VIL. 289 


is in no way said in this passage, and also does not follow from ix. 4,— 
where, as a matter of course, the sealed were not to be afflicted with certain 
plagues, yet not because they as sealed are secure from all plagues, but be- 
cause, as the sealed servants of God, they could not be attacked by any 
plague proceeding “from the abyss,” —but rather contradicts as well the 
N. T. eschatology in general,! as the prophecy of the Apoc. in particular, 
which admonishes only to patient steadfastness unto the end, and by the 
promise of eternal life can incite to conflict and victory in all temptations 
and troubles,” because it presupposes® that the servants of God can in no 
way remain untouched by all the sorrows which befall the world. The im- 
possibility of carrying through this interpretation of the sealing is immedi- 
ately seen, when the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed are to be 
determined in themselves, and their relation to the innumerable multitude, 
ver. 9 sqq. One class of expositors* refers vv. 1-8 to the flight of Chris- 
tians ὃ from Jerusalem to Pella, whereby they avoided (= ἐσφραγισμένων) the 
distresses occasioned by the siege and fall of Jerusalem. The innumer- 
able multitude of ver. 9 is, according to Alcas., Bohmer, etc., identical with 
the one hundred and forty-four thousand; according to Grot., the Christians 
in Syria ® are meant; but in any case, in vv. 9-17, the peaceful life, attended 
with all its wants, of those secured against the dangers and sorrows of the 
Jewish war, is described. The unbounded arbitrariness of this exposition,’ 
Heinrichs already sought to avoid by maintaining that in vv. 1-8 are to be 
understood not only those who fled to Pella, but all Jewish Christians up to 
the final judgment; besides this correct reference to the final judgment, he 
has also obtruded upon the text the view that the innumerable multitude, 
vv. 9-17, appears in heavenly glory. Thus Heinr. says that here (vv. 9-17) 
the Jewish Christians who perished in spite of the seaiing in the judgment 
that entered (cf. ver. 14) appear in heaven as beatified victors; so that, 
therefore, “the innumerable multitude of all nations and tongues” is to be 
understood a part of the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed out of 
Israel, while the sealing itself is to be regarded as partially ineffectual. But 
while the expositors just named, in all the defects of their mode of explana- 
tion, have correctly understood at least the one point, that the sealing has 
occurred because of a judgment to be expected after vi. 12-17, and also 
declared in vii. 1 as still impending, and accordingly ch. vii. with its pros- 
pective reference has its correct position between the sixth and seventh seals, 
Vitr., Hengstenb., and, in a certain respect, Ew. also, have attempted to 
explain the meaning of ch. vii. by making what Augustine, Tichonius, and 
many older expositors in general, call a recapitulatio.8 Even in these inter- 
preters, the view concerning the meaning and reference of the two visions, 
ch. vil., is inseparably combined with the conception that the sealing effects 
an exemption from the visitations upon the world, and with the manner in 


1 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 20 sqq. 5 Jewish Christians, ver. 4 sqq. 
2 Cf. only the epistles, chs, ii. and iii. 6 «Syria was full of Christians.” 
8 Cf. already ver. 14. 7 Cf., viz., the particulars in vv. 1, 9, 11, 14, 


4 Alcas., Grot., Wetst., Heinr., Bohmer, 16. 
ete. 8 Cf. Introduction, p. 13 sqq. 


240 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


which the relation of the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed, to the 
innumerable multitude, is determined. According to Vitringa, vii. 1-8 be- 
longs properly before vi. 12-17, because in vii. 1-8 it is described how the 
one hundred and forty-four thousand of Israel, i.e., of the true Israel in 
the mystic sense, the true Church of the purer evangelical profession,! are 
to be placed in security from the judgments stated in vi. 12-17, and to be 
introduced by the angels mentioned in vii. 1, while in vii. 9-17 the same 
sealed persons appear as an innumerable multitude in heavenly glory, after 
the execution of the judgment, vi. 12-17 (vii. 1 sqq ). Hengstenb. also 
carries us back, in vil. 1, to the point where no judgment whatever has come 
upon the world, therefore, before the six seals, and regards the declaration 
made as to how the spiritual Israel (ver. 4 sqq.), with whom‘all believing 
Gentiles are “affiliated,” consequently the entire Christian communion of 
saints, are rendered secure against all the judgments that come upon the 
world; but yet, since the guilt of the world is not something “absolutely 
alien” to the children of God, as they also have sin, and consequently — 
notwithstanding the sealing, — must suffer with the world, it is stated in vii. 
9-17, how “the best comes at the end,” i.e., the one hundred and forty-four 
thousand secured against the sorrows appear as a “relatively ” innumerable 
multitude, who are consoled and refreshed before God’s face after their vic- 
torious endurance of suffering. The contradictions involved in this mode 
of explanation are obvious: those who by the sealing are rendered secure 
against the sufferings, endure the sufferings; the numbered are innumer- 
able; those from the twelve tribes of Israel are of all lands and languages: 
and upon such contradictory propositions depends the supposition that what 
is beheld in ch. vii. after the six seal-visions (μετὰ ταῦτα, ver. 1, and again 
in ver. 9), in reality should belong before all those visions,? — a supposition 
agaiust which, therefore, the text in every way conflicts. Ew., in common 
with most interpreters,’ has correctly acknowledged the prospective position 
of ch. vii. to the seventh seal; only as far as he maintains a retrospection of 
vii. 9 sqq. to vi. 11, as he regards the innumerable multitude as the com- 
pleted band of martyrs spoken of in the fifth seal. Yet, as Ew. aptly 
remarks, the section vv. 9-17, thus understood, has an identical relation 
with the first vision to the seventh seal, in which retributive punishment is to 
be expected, inasmuch as in vv. 1-8 the sealing, i.e., the securing of Israel,* 
before. the beginning of the judgments is represented; while in vv. 9 sqq., 
it is indicated that meanwhile that has happened which was still to be 
expected after vi. 11, and before the entrance of the day of judgment, viz., 
the completion of the number of the martyrs. Thus Ewald’s view makes 
its claim not so much with respect to the relation which he gives in general 
to ch. vii., as rather because of the determination of the innumerable multi- 
tude in itself, and its connection with the one hundred and forty-four thou- 
sand sealed. The sealed also he now interprets more correctly. 

That those mentioned in ver. 9 are identical with the one hundred and 


1 The Evangelical are meant in distinction 8 Cf. Aleas., Beng., Eichh., De Wette, 
from Roman Catholics. Rinck, Ebrard, Christiani, etc. 
2 Hengstenb. 4 Ew. ii.: ‘* The elect,” Matt. xxiv. 22, 24, 31. 


CHAP. VII. 241 
forty-four thousand, vv. 1-8, and that in both places Jewish and heathen 
Christians are meant,! De Wette especially has attempted to prove: 1. 
‘Because no reason can be conceived why only Jewish, and not heathen 
Christians, should be kept from those plagues.” If this be in itself correct, 
it will show that even though in vy. 4-8 only Jewish Christians be meant, 
yet the heathen Christians are not inferior in that which their sealing 
actually signifies. 2. “The writer of the Apoc. makes no distinction 
between Jewish and heathen Christians, and sometimes designates Chris- 
tians as Israel, sometimes as the elect of all nations and tongues,? or of 
the earth.” 3— Only the latter assertion is correct and self-evident, and not 
the former, with which especially the controversy concerning vy. 4 sqq. is 
connected, that “Israel,” without any thing further, designates in the Apoc. 
the entire Israel of God; 4 in this passage, the name Israel can the less be 
understood otherwise than in the most immediate sense, i.e., to the exclu- 
sion of heathen Christians, as the individuals belonging to the individual 
tribes of Israel are mentioned directly afterwards.® 3. “Just as the king- 
dom of God is regarded as Jerusalem,® and its gates are marked with the 
names of the twelve tribes,’ so Israel is to him, viz., the true Israel of God,8 
Christian people.? Just so the twelve tribes, Matt. xix. 28, Jas. i. 1." - 
But it is something different when the kingdom of God, in its heavenly 
completion, is designated by the name of the ancient city of God,—and 
in general, where a vivid description thereof occurs, this is given with the 
express features of the O. T. Church of God, while, at the same time, the 
tenor of the description as a whole, as well as in its individual parts, shows 
how in individual points, to whose higher significance the typical sub- 
stratum of historical relations is transformed,—from when the name of 
Israel is used, under the special representation of the twelve tribes, concern- 
ing those, as is undoubtedly the case in vv. 1-8, who are to be sought on 
earth. 4. “ Those here designated are called, ver. 3, absolutely, the servants 
of God; and in xiv. 1 sqq. they appear as redeemed, either from the earth or 
from men.”— All these designations suit Israel,!° which comprises the ser- 
vants of God in a pre-eminent sense; but if in vv. 1-8 only the Jewish and 
not also the heathen Christians appear as the servants of God, the sealing 
communicated with respect to this relation, in like manner as in respect to 
only Jewish Christians, must show upon what ground this occurs, and how, 


1 Cf. also Kliefoth, p. 589: ‘* All servants of 
God who are to be at the end of days.” In 
Comment. ii. p. 108: the one hundred and 
forty-four thousand are the entire body that is 
to be protected, the ecumenical people of God; 
‘‘and in distinction from these are the multi- 
tude of many individuals whom even that pro- 
tection could not save from death.” 

2 v. 9, vii. 9. 

8 xiv. ὃ. 

4 Gal. vi. 16. 

5 From the fact that the tribe of Dan is 
lacking, the inference is not impossible, that 
the designation of Israel, together with the 


names of the tribes mentioned, is intended figu- 
ratively or mystically, i.e., the entire assembly 
of believers is designated, even the heathen 
Christians added to the spiritual Israel by 
adoption (Hengstenb.). Why, then, should 
not the spiritual Dan belong to the spiritual 
Israel? But if Israel proper be meant, the 
proper Dan would not be mentioned if the 
tribe were as good as dead. See on vv. 4-8. 

8) xx. 9) xxi 2. 

1. χχῖ; 12: 

8 Gal. vi. 16. 

10 Cf. on xiv. 1 sqq. 

11 Cf, Nr. 1. 


9 Cf. xviii. 4. 


242 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

in fact, there is in the text no trace of the seeming slight to heathen Chris- 
tians. 5. “Those coming forth, vii. 9, are not such as have been preserved 
from the calamities, but have escaped from the same, ver. 14; hence their 
coming forth belongs to a later period, and a parallel occurs between this 
passage and the former, only in the manner wherein here what is spoken of 
is the preservation, and there the deliverance as its consequence.” — This 
proposition depends upon the false presumption that the “sealing ” is a pres- 
ervation from calamity, upon the transformation of the present ἐρχόμενοι, ver. 
14, into a preterite, and the confused conception of ver. 14 in general.} 

The grounds upon which an attempt is made to show the identity of 
those mentioned in vv. 1-8 with those meant in vv. 9-17, by understanding 
in both passages Jewish and heathen Christians together, are, therefore, not 
such as stand the test:? the text leads to the opposite view, because, in vv. 
1-8, what is said has reference to Israel with its tribes, but in vv. 9 sqq. to 
all nations and tongues, because the number of one hundred and forty-four 
thousand there, although not literal but schematic, furnishes the idea of 
numerability, while here (ver. 9) the innumerability of the great multitude 
is especially emphasized; and also because what is spoken of there is the 
sealing, which is not mentioned here. The question therefore is: Who are 
those mentioned in vv. 1-8, and who those in ver. 9 sqq.? The distinction 
is sometimes made between Jewish Christians (ver. 1 sqq.) and Gentile 
Christians (ver. 9 sqq.); or Jews to be converted at the end of the world,‘ 
and Gentile Christians ;* or Jewish and Gentile Christians still living at the 
end of the world on the judgment day, and those who have died the death 
of the godly before the judgment day:® but in connection with all these 
explanations,’ we see neither any firm foundation in the text, nor the mean- 
ing and relation of the visions in connection with the whole. The latter is 
lacking also in Bengel, who, however, has correctly discerned the chief point, 
that vv. 1-8 treat only of believers from Israel, and ver. 9 sqq., of the 
glorified of all nations, Gentiles and Jews. 

Especially as to the “sealing,” the generally received explanation of it as 
the protection, or guaranty as to security, from the imminent plagues that 
were to come upon the world, necessarily results from the symbol in itself, or 
from its use in the N. T., and especially the Apoc. mode of statement, as 
little as that received meaning is justified by the facts; for the servants of 
God do not remain entirely untouched by all the sufferings whereby judg- 
ment comes upon the world. But as the seal serves for the attestation, 


1 For, on ver. 14, De Wette remarks that 
those mentioned there are delivered, ‘‘ by their 
steadfastness,’ from the distress which they 
still had to endure notwithstanding their 
*‘ sealing.” 

2 Cf. Bleek, who in his Beitr., p. 186, has 
recalled his former view of the identity of 
those expressly mentioned (ver. 1 sqq. and 
ver. 9 sqq.). 

3 Eichh., ete. 

4 Cf. Rom. xi. 25. 


δ C.a Lap. Cf. Hofmann. 

6 Stern, Rinck, Ebrard. 

7 To be silent concerning what is utterly 
wonderful, as in Aretius: ‘‘In ver. 1 sqq., 
they are meant who publicly profess Christ, 
as Christians in almost all Europe; ver. 9 Βα.» 
they who do not publicly profess Christ’s 
name, as innumerable Christians in Asia and 
Africa, whom Christ preserves. How he does 
this without external preaching, he himself 
knows.” 


es οὐ 


CHAP. VII. 243 


as, e.g., of a document,! and, in general, for confirmation, so in this passage 
the sealing of those who already are servants of God designates nothing 
else than the immutable firmness of their éxAoyf,? which is not to be affected 
even by the πειρασμός ὃ of the last great θλίψις. Striking analogies to this 
interpretation of the σφραγίζειν are 2 Cor. i. 22; Eph. i. 19, iv. 30.6 To the 
servants of God, therefore, upon whose forehead the seal of the living God 
is impressed, the Divine warrant is thereby given that in the greatest tribu- 
lations they remain the servants of God, until they have been preserved in 
their fidelity unto the end, and are victoriously conducted to eternal glory 
in God’s kingdom. The seal designates, therefore, not preservation from 
tribulation, but preservation in tribulation from a fall. 

But even with this conception of the σφραγίζειν, the difficulty arises, that if 
the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed of Israel are not also of the 
Gentiles, the latter seem subordinated to the former in an inexplicable way.® 
This difficulty is thus removed in accordance with the context: 1. While, in 
respect to the servants of God from Israel, the guaranty is given in advance 
by the special act of sealing, that the tribulation (of the seventh seal) now 
entering is not to turn them from their heavenly Lord (vv. 1-8), the same 
thing is represented in respect to the servants of God from the Gentiles, 
in that (vv. 9-17) an innumerable multitude of all nations, kindreds, and 
tongues, therefore of Jews and Gentiles, appear as those who “ have come out 
of great tribulation” (ver. 14), and now stand as triumphant victors before 
the throne of God for no other reason than because they have persevered 
unto the end in the same fidelity as the sealed from Israel. 2. But that 
this is thus said in a twofold way, first of Israel alone, and then of all true 
servants of God, including those of Israel, has its foundation in the fact that 
inasmuch as the judgment to be expected, — in the seventh seal, — although 
only one comprising all enemies, yet contains two chief acts: viz., first, the 
punishment inflicted upon the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom 
and Egypt, where the Lord was crucified, i.e., Jerusalem; then the judg- 
ment upon the spiritually so-called Babel, i.e., Rome, — in the tribulation 
with which the Lord comes in judgment upon unbelieving Israel, the one 
hundred and forty-four thousand servants of God are to be kept in security, 
even though they are to suffer; thus the vision, vv. 1-8, looks towards 
what the seventh seal is to bring upon unbelieving Israel.§ But that 
also the servants of God from the Gentiles, together with the one hundred 
and forty-four thousand sealed from Israel, are to come out of great tribu- 
lation, and to enter glory as faithful warriors of Christ, the other vision 
states, which thus refers to the tribulation with which the Lord shall visit 
Babylon.? At the critical point, therefore, between the sixth and seventh 
seals, before the seventh seal, which is to show the coming itself of the 


1 Cf. Esth. viii. 8. 6 Volkm. and similar critics see here the 
2 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 22-24, where especially the decided Judaism of John. 
εἰ δυνατόν is to be observed. ΤῸ» xis 8, 
8 Cf. iii. 10. 4 Cf. ver. 14. 8 Cf. viii. 1-xi. 14. 
5 Of. also Rom. xv. 28; John iii. 33, vi. 27; 9 Ch. xii. sqq. 


1 Cor. ix. 6; Rom. iv. 11. 


244 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Lord, is opened, the double vision of ch. vii. enters, whereby testimony is 
given, in the most express way, that al] the tribulation impending over the 
true servants of God is not to occasion their fall, but that from this tribula- 
tion, which brings judgment upon the werld, they are to come to eternal 
glory. 8. That in this sense a special sealing was given the servants of 
God from Israel, and not the Gentile Christians, is natural, because the con- 
crete form of the people of Israel with its individual tribes suggests the 
more definite idea of a complete mass, and, therefore, of one to be com- 
prised in a (schematic) number; but if the look turns to the servants of 
God from the heathen, the limitation vanishes, the multitude appears innu- 
merable (ver. 9), and the idea of a special sealing imparted to all individu- 
als would be entirely untenable. 4. But if what is said in ver. 9 sqq. be not 
only of the servants of God from the heathen, but in the innumerable 
multitude wherein the one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed are to be 
regarded as included, this depends upon the fact, that, even though a special 
reference to the Israelites has a good foundation, yet the final equality and 
fellowship of all believers in heavenly glory must be made prominent. 

Ver. 1. τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους. We must here think neither of wicked angels,} 
nor of angels of the wind, after the analogy of the angel of the water, xvi. 
5,” but of angels in general, to whom the office here described has been 
given, ver. 2,3 just as angels afterwards appear with trumpets and vials. 
Without any foundation are the allegorical interpretations, as in Beda,’ and 
N. de Lyra, who proposes Maximian, Severus, Maxentius, and Licinius,5 
while the other angel, ver. 2, is regarded as Constantine. — ἑστῶτας ---- γῆς. 
The position of the angels corresponds with their occupation: κρατοῦντας ---- 
γῆς. The four corners of the earth (τὰς τέσσ. γών, τοὺς τέσσ. ἀν.) are the points 
from which the four winds of the earth go forth.6 John beholds the four 
angels as they still hold the winds,’ to prevent them from blowing (iva μὴ 
πνέῃ av., k.7.A.); but according to what immediately follows, the situation is 
such that the angels are ready to let loose the winds as soon as the purpose 
of the other angel, who is already rising up (ver. 2 sqq.), 1s accomplished. 
— If also “the four winds of the earth” be interpreted allegorically, although 
the expression sounds as unallegorical as possible, —of which examples have 
just been given, — then also the earth, the sea, and the trees must be under- 
stood figuratively. For thus Grot. says on τ. γῆς : “ viz., Judaea;” on ἀνέμους : 
“ The winds signify any sort of calamity.” The “sea” is “a great people, 
such as is that of Jerusalem especially;” the trees designate “ what come 


from trees, as cities, but especially the temple:” in general, the times of 


peace under King Agrippa are meant. 


1 Aret., Zeger, Laun., Calov., Beng., Rinck, 
etc. 
2 Alcas., C. a Lap., Stern, Heinr., Ziill., 
De Wette. 

3 Vitr., Ewald, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

4 τέσσ. ayy.= “186 four principal kingdoms 
of the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Rom- 
ΔΒ; xpat. τ. ἀνεμ. = ‘* They allow no one 
to breathe according to the pleasure of his 


Bohmer regards the “earth” as 


own right; γῆ =“ diversity of provinces; ” 
dévdp.: “diverse quality of men.” 

5 «‘Hindering the doctors of the Church 
from preaching the word of God.”’ Cf. simi- 
lar interpretations of κρατ. τ. τεσσ. ἀνέμ.; 6.8.» 
in Aret., who regards the wicked angels as the 
Pope, the Turks, etc. 

6 Cf. Jer. xlix. 36; Zech. vi. 1 sqq.; Dan. 
vii. 2. T «pat., Cf. i. 1, iil, 11, 


CHAP. VII. 2, 3. 245 


Jews, the ‘‘sea” as heathen; therefore he says that the Christians still to 
be mentioned are designated by the “trees.” According to Beng., the 
earth is Asia, the sea Europe, the trees Africa. Hengstenb. also regards 
“the four winds of the earth” as symbols of the Divine judgments, viz., 
those described in ch. vi.; the “sea” designates masses of people; the 
“trees” are magnates, vi. 15. — But every kind of allegorizing is without 
the least foundation in the text. The winds which in their proper natural- 
‘ness are, besides, expressly designated as ‘‘the four winds of the earth,” are 
not once personified here, as ‘in Zech. vi. 1 sqq.,— where, however, what is 
said dare not be taken as an allegory in the strict sense, — but as in vi. 4 an 
actual shedding of blood, and in vi. 12 an actual earthquake, so here actual 
winds are meant, storms which are to have the mastery of the whole earth, 
as they are also ready to break loose from all four ends of the earth. But 
in the fact, that, after the dreadful signs of the sixth seal have led immedi- 
ately to the day of the final judgment, now —as the description of this judg- 
ment is to be expected in the seventh, last seal —a visitation of like character, 
as in the sixth seal, is again set forth, and its infliction restrained until after 
the sealing of the servants of God from Israel, the intimation is already 
given that the actual occurrence of the final catastrophe will not be until 
after the course of a still further manifestation of preliminary afflictions, as 
they proceed from the seventh seal in long and connected sequence. 

Vv. 2,3. ἄλλον ἄγγελον. That an angel—not an archangel ?— is to be 
thought.of,? not Christ,* to be silent concerning the Holy Spirit,® results not 
only from the appellation ἄγγελος, but especially from the fact that this ἄλλος 
ἄγγ. is designated in the clearest way by the contrast with the angels men- 
tioned in ver. 1, as of a different nature. The mode of expression also, ver. 
3, τ. δουλ. τ. θεοῦ ἡμῶν, suits most simply the mouth of an angel, not of Christ.® 
Cf. especially viii. 3, x. 1, xiv. 6, 8, 9, 17, xvilil. 1. — ἀναβαίνοντα ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς 
ἡλίου. John, therefore, sees how the angel comes forth,’ while the first four 
angels stand already in their places as he looks upon them; the angel now 
entering will take part in the act. The expression ἀπὸ dvar. ἡλίου admits of no 
allegorical meaning; the annexed ἡλίου renders impossible the interpretation 
of the ἀνατολῇ, with a vague allusion to Luke i. 73, as referring to Christ,’ so as 
to make the sense that the other angel is sent by Christ or God.§ The quarter 
of the heavens, the east, is designated; but not because of the look towards 
Judaea,? or to “ Patmos, and especially the Christian lands where the light 
of the gospel first shone,” 2° which is here out of place; not “because the 
Hebrews always turned first towards the east,” 11 whereby properly nothing 
is explained; not because the throne of God whence the angel proceeds 12 is 


1 Cf. Introduction, p. 12 sqq. 6 Cf. already Beng. 
2 Stern. 7 Grot. 
3 Ὁ. ἃ Lap., Grot., Beng., Eichh., Ew., De 8 Calov. 
Wette, Rinck, Ebrard. 9 Wetst. 
4 Beda, Aret., Zeger, Calov., Béhmer, 10 Stern. 
Hengstenb. 11 De Wette. 
5 Vitr., who interprets the seal used by this 12 Ew. ii.: ‘* As though, by the Divine com- 


“angel” as ‘*the public profession of the mission, he had commanded the sun to shine 
purer faith’? wrought by the Spirit. no longer with such excessive heat, but to 


246 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


regarded as in the east,! for that is nowhere indicated in the Apoc.; nor 
because, as plagues have their origin in the east, “for the earth (viii. 7) is 
Asia,” so also the sealing:? but because it is appropriate and significant that 
the angel, coming for a victorious employment which brings eternal life, 
should arise from that side from which life and light are brought by the 
earthly sun. The angel himself, who does not descend from heaven, but 
rises from the horizon,‘ is represented after the manner of the rising sun. — 
ἔχοντα, οἷ. 1. 16. — σφραγῖδα θεοῦ ζῶντος. Without meaning ὅ 15 the metonymy 
accepted by Grot.: “The sealed constitution of the King.” The angel has 
a seal (in his hand) which he will press upon the foreheads of the servants 
of God. The gen. θεοῦ ¢. designates simply, that the seal belongs to the 
living God; that it “has been delivered by God,” ὃ is, therefore, self-evident, 
but not expressed. The attempt has been made to conjecture the legend of 
the seal. Beda, C. a Lap., Grot., Bohmer, regard it the sign of the cross; 
with more probability, Eichh., Ew., De Wette, Ebrard, etc., propose the 
name of God and of the Lamb.?_ But since the text says nothing, nothing 
can be inferred. As the definite article is absent, the idea is left open that 
there are different seals of God for different purposes. In this passage, the 
mark made by the seal, upon the foreheads of the servants of God, does not 
mean what the χάραγμα indicates, which the worshippers of the beast receive 
upon the forehead or the right hand,° viz., the belonging to one Lord and 
serving him; 10 for they who receive the seal are already “servants of God.” 
The question is as little as to the fact of their being recognized and out- 
wardly shown to be servants of God, or “that they receive the letter and 
. seal to their being servants of God,’’!4 as that they are rendered secure from 
the approaching sufferings, but that, notwithstanding the approaching suffer- 
ing, they are guaranteed their perseverance in the state of being servants of 
God; therefore the suffering does not come until the sealing of the servants 
of God has occurred. It is significant, with respect to this purpose of the 
sealing, that the seal belongs to the living God, whereby it is not said that he 
is the true and actual, and hence not that it is only his seal which is valid,” 
but that he as the living also gives life.18 Yet the conception of the glory, 
for which the sealed are preserved, is that they attain to eternal life in the 
sight of the living God.14 — ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ. The call with ἃ strong voice 
is in general peculiar to heavenly beings; it does not always have a special 
purpose.15 Beng. refers the loud cry of the angel to the fact that he wished 
to restrain the four angels who desired to make a beginning of the affliction; 
Hengstenb. finds therein the certainty of the command that has been given. 


_reserve its ardor” (ver. 16). But this supple- 
mentary fiction is in violation of the context, 
and ver. 16 has no analogy with the situation 
of ver. 1 sqq. 


7 Cf. xiv. 1, iii. 12. 

8 Hengstenb. 

9 λαμβάνειν; xiii. 16, xiv. 9, 11, xvi. 2, xix. 
20, xx. 4. 


1 Ew. i. 

2 Beng. 

8 Cf.C.a Lap., Hengstenb., Ebrard, Volkm. 
4 Beng. 

5 Cf. ver. 3: σφραγ. --- ἐπὶ τ. μετώπων AUT. 


6 Hichh. 


10 So Ewald, etc. 

11 Hengstenb. 

12 De Wette. 

13 Bengel, Ew., Hengstenb., Klief. 

14 Of, ii. 7, 10, iii. 5, vii. 14 sqq., xxii. 1 sqq. 
15 Cf., e.g., vi. 1 with v. 2. 


CHAP. VII. 2, 3. 247 


— The most probable idea is, that the call is to penetrate to the ends of the 
earth where the angels stand. — oi¢ — αὐτοῖς, as 111. 8. — ἐδόθη, «.7.A. Concern- 
ing the aor. in the sense of a plusquampf., cf. Winer, p. 258. On the con- 
ception of ἐδόθη, cf. vi. 4. The ἀδικεῖν, injuring,! would occur if the angels 
would let loose the winds which they still hold; the command μὴ ἀδικῆσατε, 
«.t.A., Still hinders this.2_ It is contrary to the context to regard the ἀδικεῖν 
as consisting rather in holding fast the winds, because, had the winds blown, 
they would have “cooled off,” ὃ or “blown away,” the approaching plagues; 
according to Herder, the restraining of the winds is to be regarded an ἀδικεῖν, 
as thereby “ὁ the sultriness of death ” is occasioned before the irruption of the 
plagues. From the fact that in what follows, the letting loose of the devas- 
tating winds is not reported, the view that just this restraining of the winds 
is destructive * follows as little as the necessity of understanding the winds as 
a figurative designation of retributive visitations of all kinds. For, that 
it is not devastating tempests, but other plagues of many kinds, which proceed 
from the opening of the seventh seal, has in a formal respect its foundation 
in the fact that the succeeding seal-vision cannot justly be regarded and be 
treated further as a matter from the simple visions occurring between the last 
two seals; but a difficulty actually arises only if, hindered by a mechanical 
literalism, it cannot be seen that the holy fantasy of the prophet sees in 
vii. 1 sqq. the storm impending, which afterwards, however, is not seen 
in its approach, because (viii. 1 sqq.), in place of the desolating winds, hail 
and fire, and other plagues, come forth. — It is noticeable that in ver. 2, the 
trees are not especially mentioned, as in vv. 1, 3, because it is self-evident 
that they belong to the earth;® there lies therein, however, a manifest hint 
that neither the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, are to be understood figura- 
tively. Hengstenb. asks, indeed, how the sea, if it be meant in the proper 
sense, could be injured by winds; he does not consider that the specification 
in which the trees, as objects most easily injured by storms, are especially 
made prominent with the simplicity of nature,’ is meant only to serve § to 
make visible how the entire earth, from whose four ends the winds are to 
rage, will be injured. — ἄχρε σφραγίσωμεν. “Until we shall have sealed.” Cf. 
Winer, p. 279. The plur. indicates that the angel has associates, who need 
not be further mentioned.® With the whole train of thought of ver. 1 sqq., 
Hengstenb. conflicts when he advances the opinion that the four angels 
are to help in the sealing. The older interpreters, as Calov., refer the plur. 
to the Father and the Son, from both of whom the Holy Ghost (the seal) 
proceeds. [See Note LII., p. 255.] τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν. “ This noble 
designation pertains especially to saints from Israel. Gen. 1.17; Isa. Ixi. 
6.” 10 Yet the reference in the connection is to Israel alone, although the 
expression in itself, because of the art., could include also the Gentiles. 
[Note LIII., p. 256.] To the angel here speaking, who is to seal, belong 


1 vi. 6. 6 Ebrard. 
2 Cf. Alcas., C.a Lap., Vitr., Eichh., Ewald, 7 Cf. De Wette. 
De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 8 Cf. v. 13. 
3 Bengel. Cf. viii. 7 sqq. 9 Bengel, Ew., De Wette, Rinck. 


4 Rinck. 5 Hengstenb. 10 Beug. 


248 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


only the definite, more accurately designated servants of God, of ver. 4 sqq. 
The τ, θεοῦ ἡμῶν is significant; the angel himself, together with his associ- 
ates, is, because of his relation to the same God, a fellow-servant of those 
for whose service he has been sent.1—émt τῶν μετώπων αὐτῶν. The mark 
which the servants of the beast have received is, like the brand of slaves in 
ordinary life, impressed upon the right hand or forehead :? the servants of 
God bear the seal and name of the Lord only on the forehead. That this 
is the most visible place,’ is a reason sufficient only with respect to those 
servants of the beast: with respect to the servants of God, however, it is 
found in the fact that the noblest part of the body bears the holy mark. 

Vv. 4-8. καὶ ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων. The act of sealing is, 
therefore, to be considered as occurring between ver. 3 and ver. 4. That 
John does not behold this act itself, but only hears the number of the sealed, 
—probably from the other angel, vv. 2, 3,4— corresponds with the holy 
moderation which is peculiar to true prophecy; for as in the innumerable 
company, ver. 9 sqq., the sealing, in general, is such as cannot be represented,5 
so in reference to the one hundred and forty-four thousand out of Israel, it 
would be in a high degree unnatural if their sealing had occurred before the 
eyes of the prophet. In Ezek. ix. it is, likewise, not described how the mark 
was made upon the foreheads of the godly; but after the command for this 
is communicated (ver. 4), in ver. 11 it is said that it is accomplished. Yet — 
it is not a happy fiction of John,® that he says that he has only heard the 
number of the sealed; but the apparently insignificant circumstance testifies 
to the truth of the vision, and the entirely ethical nature of divine revelation 
in general. Nor is it possible for that to be revealed by vision to the prophet 
which must conflict with his proper subjectivity. —The schematic number 
one hundred and forty-four thousand applies, as a product of the radical 
number twelve, especially to believers from the twelve tribes of Israel. — ἐκ 
πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν lop. “Out of every tribe.” Cf. Winer, p. 105. The pregnant 
mode of expression shows that one hundred and forty-four thousand in all 
were sealed, and that the sealed were from every tribe. What follows (vv. 
5-8) makes the declaration more specific, upon which it is to be noted: 1. 
That the number of twelve thousand, fixed for each of the twelve tribes, from 
the very fact that it is every time the same shows that it is schematic by ex- 
pressing the idea that in the divine gifts of grace all have like share, but no 
one from any one right. It is just as when in Ezek. xlvii. 14, the Holy Land 
appears equally divided among all the tribes. 2. As to the representation of 
the tribes, neither the tribe of Levi dare be missing,’ nor is the fixed num- 
ber, twelve, exceeded. Yet it was impracticable to include Manasseh and 
Ephraim under the name of Joseph, because each of those two branches of 
the original tribe of Joseph stands by the side of the other tribes with sig- 


1_Cf. xix. 10, xxii. 9. f 7 Beng., correctly: ‘Since the Levitical 
2 xiii. 16, xiv. 9, xx. 4. ceremonies have been abandoned, Levi again 
3 Aret., Beng., Stern, etc. is found on an equal footing with his brethren. 
4 De Wette, Ebrard. All are priests; all have access, not one through 
5 See the general note on ch. vii. the other, but one with the other.” 


6 Zill. 


CHAP. VII. 4-8. 249 


nificative independence of age.! If, also, John wanted, in general, to avoid 
the name of Ephraim, because of the untheocratic reminiscence connected 
therewith, he put instead thereof the accurately taken paternal name of 
Joseph, including also the fraternal tribe of Manasseh.2 Yet the appear- 
ance of not thirteen, but only twelve tribes, is accomplished by the omission 
of the tribe of Dan.? Gomarus,* Hartwig, and Ziill. have indeed put Δάν 
instead of Mavaoo7#,—an arbitrary decision, in no way justified by unim- 
portant codd. (ix. 13), because they offer Δάν instead of Γάδ, and this contra- 
dicts the express testimonies of Iren., Orig., Andr., etc. Of just as little 
force is the play upon the name Manasseh, according to which the root of 
the word (NW), “he forgot”) is regarded as indicating that here another 
name, viz., Dan, is regarded as forgotten, or properly not forgotten, but 
“embraced or incorporated in a secret way.”® The intentional omission of 
the tribe of Dan is explained, especially by the Church Fathers,. by the fact 
that from this tribe the Antichrist was to come,’ which, however, John no- 
where intimates. Others have recalled the idolatry of the Danites;® but the 
old sin of the tribe can be no foundation for excluding all its members from 
eternal life. The avoidance of the name of Ephraim, that had become 
“ offensive,” 9 in no way favors this view, because the tribe named, of course, 
intentionally not as Ephraim, but Joseph, presents its twelve thousand like 
the rest. ‘The simplest reason for not naming Dan lies rather in the fact 
that it had died out long already before the time of John ; 19. even though the 
more definite declaration of Jewish tradition that only the family of Husim 
survived from the tribe of Dan," may be nothing but a reminiscence of Gen. 
xlvi. 23. Already in 1 Chron. iv. sqq., the tribe of Dan is omitted, although 
it is not passed over in 1 Chron. ii. 1 sqq. Cf. also Deut. xxxiii., where the 
small tribes of Simeon and Issachar are lacking. —In the succession it is 
only by an artificial subtilty which often passes over into pure trifling, that 
a consequent intention and a mystical meaning can be found. Beda, e.g., 
explains, because of the secret meaning of the name: “ After Judah, there- 
fore, Reuben; i.e., after the beginnings of divine confession and praise, the 
performance of an action follows.” 12- Besides, the opinion of Hengstenb.!8 
is possible, that the sons of the wives and those of the bondwomen are 
intentionally commingled in order to indicate that in Christ no earthly dis- 
tinction is valid. But Grot. also can say, from his standpoint, “ No order 
is observed, because in Christ all are equal.”14 It is natural for Judah to 
have the precedence, because from that tribe the Lord comes.”15 Reuben 
follows afterwards, who as the firstborn could have stood before.1® The suc- 
ceeding names are introduced without further intention; only at the close 


1 Ewald, ete. 2 Cf. Num. xiii. 11. 9 Hengstenb. 
3 Cf. especially Heinrichs, Lxcursus iii.: 10 Grot., Ew., De Wette, Ebrard, etc. 
* Cur in recensu tribuum Israel, c. vii. 5-8, 11 Cf. Grot. 
nulla tribus Daniticz mentio fiat ” (ii. 228 sqq.). 12 « Reuben = videns filium; filii = opera.” 
4 In Wetst. 5 Cf. also Matth. 13 Cf. Vitr., etc. 
6 Beng., Eichh. 14 Cf. also C. a Lap., Calov., De Wette, etc. 
7 Cf. Gen. xlix.17. Beda, Andr., C.a Lap., 15 y, 5; Heb. vii. 14. Beda, Beng., Rinck, 
Stern. Ebrard, etc. 


8 Judg. xviii. Wetst., Vitr., Hengstenb. 16 Cf. also 1 Chron. νυ. 1. 


250 THE REVELATION OF ST, JOHN. 
stands Benjamin as the youngest, and finally, from an allusion to the 
O. T.,1 in connection with Joseph.? 

Ver. 9. Μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον, x.t.A. The entire vision, vv. 9-17, follows, of 
course, upon what precedes, but it is throughout, as to its significance, 
inseparable from what precedes; against De Wette, who calls the vision 
proleptical or ideal, because here John 8 “looks forward from the develop- 
ments which he beholds in the earthly world, to their blessed fulfilment,” — 
in connection with which nothing further is to be asked than how the saved 
enter heaven, whether through death, or otherwise. But even though the 
vision, as to its contents, be proleptical, nevertheless, wherever it occurs, its 
meaning and force must be determined by the connection of the entire 
Apoc.; and this corresponds to the parallelism in which the second vision 
of ch. vii. stands to the first.4— ὄχλον πολὺν, «x.7.A. In contrast with the 
multitude out of Israel represented by a definite number (v. 4 sqq.), the 
great concourse from every people, and all tribes and tongues, appears here 
as innumerable. The contrast required by the text cannot be explained 
away by the fact, that, if the one hundred and forty-four thousand be identi- 
fied with this great multitude, the innumerability becomes relative, with 
which then it is regarded as harmonizing that John, ver. 4, heard the num- 
ber of the sealed, because they were innumerable by him: ® this expedient, 
however, is not allowed by the words, ver. 9, dv ἀριθ. ait. οὐδεὶς ἠδ.; cf. with 
reference to the ὃν ---- αὑτον, ver. 2. The remark of De Wette also, that 
ver. 4, by its numerical statement, presents the idea of election with the 
antithesis of reprobation, while ver. 9 refers only to the attaining of sal- 
vation without this antithesis, is inapplicable, because the idea of election 
lies alike in the text in both passages; since, just as the one hundred and 
forty-four thousand are out of Israel (ἐκ mao. φυλ. vi. Ἴσρ., ἐκ φυλ. Ἰουδ, «.7.A.), 
so the innumerable multitude are out of all nations (ἐκ παντ. é6v.). The 
essential distinction is in the fact that the horizon, which in ver. 4 com- 
prised only Israel, now includes absolutely all nations and races, Gentiles 
and Jews, humanity in its totality. This is stated by the second formula 
with its four categories, which also comprises all sides in its enumeration.® 
[See Note LIV., p. 258.] ἑστῶτες --- περιβεβλημένους, κιτὰΔ. There is no diffi- 
culty in the use of the plural with a collective;? but also the irregularity of 
using the nom. εστῶτες, and thus throwing the clause éor.— dpviov out of the 
construction, while the next words, περιβεβλημένους, x.7.A., recur to the original 
structure of the sentence (εἶδον ὄχλον πολύν), is not inadmissible in the idiom 
of the Apoc. The standing before the throne of God and of the Lamb ὃ 
points to the eternal communion with God and the Lamb,°® whose heavenly 
glory and blessed joy are also expressed by white robes,!° and palm-branches 


1 Gen. xxxv. 24, xlvi. 20, 21; Deut. xxvii. 
21; Num. i. 10, 11; 1 Chron. ii. 2. 

2 It is strange that in δὲ, not only Gad and 
Simeon are forgotten, but also Joseph and 
Benjamin are transposed. 


3 Cf. xi. 15 sqq., xiv. 1 sqq., 13, xv. 2 sqq. 


4 See general remarks on ch. vii. 
δ Hengstenb. 


6 Cf. v. 9. 

7 Winer, p. 480. 

8 Cf. ver. 15, xxii. 3. 

9 Grot., who refers this, in general, to the 
great number of Christians in Syria, remarks 
On ἑστῶτες, K.T.A.: “i.e., having a mind not 
sunk to earth, but raised to heaven.”’ 

10 Cf. vi. 11. 


CHAP. VII. 11, 12. 251 


in the hands of those who have finished their course. There is no founda- 
tion for the inference from the φοίνικες of a heavenly feast of tabernacles as 
the festival of the eternal harvest-home ;1 but when, also, in ver. 15 (σκηνώσει 
ἐπ’ αὐτούς), a reference is found to the dwelling in tabernacles, and, in con- 
nection with ver. 17 (ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων), to the fact that ? during the feast 
of tabernacles, a priest daily drew water from the wells of Siloah in order 
to sprinkle it beside the altar, something entirely foreign is introduced. But 
on the other side, also, the reference to the palm-branches, which the victors 
in the Grecian games bore with their palm-garlands,’ is excessively specific.® 
It is entirely sufficient, without any more special reference, to regard the 
palm-branches as a sign of festal joy.6— x. κράζουσι φωνῇ μεγαλῇ. The strength 
of the cry, besides being peculiar to the heavenly beings,’ corresponds to the 
impulse of their joy and gratitude.§ — ἡ σωτηρία, x.7.4. They sing praises as 
those who have become complete participants of salvation; and this they 
ascribe to their God, who sits upon the throne, as the ultimate author, and 
the Lamb as the mediator. The σωτηρία is not victory in general,® but the 
entire sum of the salvation which the blessed now perfectly possess, since 
they have been removed from all want, temptation, sin, and death, and have 
come into the presence of their God.!° Improperly, Grot. explains ἡ σωτηρία 
metonymically, viz., “thanks for the salvation received.” The thanksgiving, 
however, occurs from the fact that the σεσωμένοι ascribe the σωτηρία given 
them, to their God as σωτήρ. 

Vv. 11, 12. All the angels,!! in response, continue the ascription of 
praise, ver. 10. — εἱστήκεισαν ---- καὶ ἔπεσαν, x.7.A. They stood already (“had 
stationed themselves”) during the scene described in vv. 9, 10; now they 
fall down.12— μήν. The angels, first of all, conclude man’s song of praise, 
ver. 10,18 in order then, in their own way, to carry it farther: ἡ εὐλογία, «.7.A, 
This doxology is formally distinguished from that in v. 12 by the fact that in 
this passage every particular item appears distinctly marked by the article 
attached as being in complete independence. Beng. remarks, arbitrarily, that 
the sevenfold ascription of praise has in view the seven trumpets, and there- 
fore in the trumpet of the first angel, εὐλογία, and in that of the second angel, 
δόξα, prevails, etc. With equal arbitrariness, Hengstenb.: the εὐλογία, which 
concludes v. 12, here precedes as a sign that the present ascription of praise is 
connected with the former, — but what a distance between v. 12 and vii. 12! 
The particular explanation of Grot. on ver. 11: “ For both the apostles who 
were at Jerusalem, and the elders, had gone forth together,” in connection 
with his reference of ver. 9 sqq. to the multitude of Christians in Syria, is 
to be understood only when his observations on iv. 4, 6 sqq., are recalled. 


1 Cf. Vitr., Eichh., Heinr., Hengstenb., 6 Cf. John xii. 18; 1 Macc. xiii. 51. 
Bohmer. 7 Cf. ver. 2. 

2 Cf. Winer, Rwb., ii. 9. 8 Cf. C. a Lap. 

8 Against Vitr., Hengstenb., etc. 9 Eichh. 

4 Pausanias, Arcad., 48: οἱ δὲ ἀγῶνες φοί- 10 Cf. vv. 9, 15, xxi. 4. 
γικος ἔχουσιν οἱ πολλοὶ στέφανον" eis δὲ τὴν 11 Cf. y. 11, where, in a similar way, an 
δεξίαν ἐστὶ καὶ πανταχοῦ τῷ νικῶντι ἐστι θέμε- innumerable multitude appears. 
vos φοῖνιξ. ; in Wetst. 12 Of. v. 14, xi. 16. 


5 Against Ew., etc. 13 C.a Lap., Beng., Heinr., Ew., Hengstenb. 


252 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

Vv. 13-17. The second half of the vision contains an express interpre- 
tation of the first half, ver. 9 sqq. — That it is one of the elders, who gives 
this interpretation,! corresponds with the idea of these elders as the repre- 
sentatives of the Church,? whose innumerable multitude appears here in 
glory.2— ἀπεκρίθη designates, like 11}),4 the speech uttered when an occasion 
is given,® which, however, cannot be limited to a definite question. Here the 
ἀποκρίνεσθαι may be referred® to the (unexpressed) desire of John to learn 
something further concerning the multitude beheld in ver. 9; but even with- 
out accepting any such unexpressed question of John, the simple reference of 
the fact of the vision, ver. 9 sqq., as the occasion for the declaration of the 
elders, is sufficient. The form of a dialogue,’ with its dramatic vividness, 
serves to emphasize the point under consideration; for, by asking what he 
intends to explain,® the elder brings John to the answer which comprises 
the acknowledgment of his own ignorance, and the expression of the wish 
for an explanation. Thus, then the explanation, awaited with expectancy, 
follows in ver. 14 sqq. --- τίνες εἰσὶν καὶ πόθεν ἦλθον. The elder presents the 
two points concerning which one unacquainted would naturally ask first.® 
Both questions also have their answer in ver. 14, of course not in an exter- 
nal sense as though they had to do with names, station, country, etc., but so 
that the inner nature of the appearance is explained. — The address κύριε μου, - 
which everywhere expresses real homage, — even where the μου, which makes 
the reference still more earnest, is lacking,!°— has in John’s mouth complete 
justification, because he stands before a heavenly being, whose superiority 
he acknowledges in the matter immediately under consideration by the od 
οἶδας. By this John does not say, “I, indeed, know it too, but you know it 
better,” 11 but, “I do not know it, yet it may be heard from you, as you know 
it.” 12— oj ἐρχόμενοι. Incorrectly, Ew. i.: “who have just come hither ;’ 
Ebrard, etc., “those having come.” The present is to be retained,}® as it 
alone corresponds to the idea of the entire vision ; 4 for it is not individuals, 
as possibly martyrs,15 who are introduced, but to the seer there is given in 
anticipation a view of all faithful believers, as they are thus shown to him as 
those who, after the great tribulation of the last day shall be finished, shall 
stand before the throne of God and of the Lamb, ver. 9 sqq. The explana- 
tion of the elder (in which the present ἐρχόμενοι, the aor. éxAvvav, ἐλεύκαναν 
(ver. 14), again the present εἰσὶν, λατρεύουσιν, and, finally, the future σκηνώσει 
— ἐξαλείψει (vv. 15-17), must, in like manner, be observed) is intelligible in its 
form of expression only by regarding the reality as not yet coinciding with 


genus? unde domo?” More examples of the 


1 Cf. v. 4. 

2 Cf. iv. 4. kind in Wetst. 

3 Cf. Ebrard. 10 Zech. i. 9, iv. 4, 5, 18; Gen. xxiii. 6, 11, 

4 Cant. ii. 10. Ew. xxxi. 85; Num. xii. 11; John xii. 21, xx. 15. 

5 Matt. xi. 25. Cf., on this, Meyer. 11 Ebrard. 

6 Beng., Hengstenb. 12 Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb. 

7 De Wette. Cf. Jer. i. 11 sqq.; Zech. iv. 13 Beng., Ziill., De Wette, Hengstenb.; also 
1 sqq. Ew. ii. 


8 “6 asks in order to teach.” Beda, C.a 
Lap., Aret., etc. 


9 Cf. Jon.i.8. Virg., Aen., viii. 14: * Qui 


14 Cf. the preliminary remarks on ch. vii. 
15 Cf. the ἐκ τ. θλίψ. τ. wey. and the ἔπλυναν, 
κιτιλ. 


CHAP. VII. 13-17. 268 


what has been beheld. The vision displays that host as they are already 
before God’s throne, and are serving him (εἰσὶν, λατρεύουσιν, ver. 15, pres.) ; 
they are those who (in their earthly life) have washed (ἔπλυναν, ἐλεύκαναν, ver. 
14, aor.) their robes in the blood of the Lamb. From the same standpoint, 
the pres. ἐρχόμενοι yields the idea, that they come before the eyes of the gazing 
prophet, and assemble before the throne of God. For it appears more suit- 
able to one contemplating the standpoint of the vision in all the other points 
up to ver. 1δα (ἐν τ. ν. αὐτ.), to hold fast, also, to the pres. ἐρχόμενοι, than} to 
regard this ἐρχόμενοι in the sense of a future, and to find the allusion in the 
fact that that multitude was actually still upon earth, and is only still to 
come. Particularly opposed to this is the combination with the aor. x. 
ἔπλυναν. But from ver. 15b (καὶ ὁ καθήμ., «.7.4.), the elder speaks not from 
the standpoint of the vision, but of reality. To that entire multitude, which 
is already presented to John in the vision as in final glory, there yet belongs 
first, since they are, in reality, still upon earth, the great hope of which the 
elder speaks: ὁ καθ. ἐπὶ τ. Op. σκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτ., οὐ πεινάσουσιν, x.7.A. It is through- 
out sufficient that the explanatory address maintains in the beginning the 
standpoint of the vision, and that it is not until the close that the proper 
situation of affairs is opened. — ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης. Not only because 
of the definite article, and the discriminating predicate τ. μεγάλης, but also 
because of the reference of the entire vision from ver. 9, it is impossible to 
understand “the great tribulation ” very generally “of all trouble and labor 
on earth:”? on the contrary, the eschatological reference is necessary 
whereby the θλῖψις, announced by the Lord in Matt. xxiv. 21, and also 
prophesied by John, which is to be expected after vi. 17, and therefore in 
the seventh seal, the immediate preparatory signs of which, also, are de- 
scribed already in vi. 12-17, is meant. The entire vision (ver 9 sqq.) thus 
places before the eyes the fact, that, like the sealed of Israel (ver. 1 sqq.), 
the innumerable multitude of all believers out of all nations shall neverthe- 
less remain faithful in that great tribulation, and therefore shall attain to 
heavenly glory. — καὶ éxAvvav — ἀρνίον. Concerning the relation expressed by 
the aor., see on οἱ ἐρχόμενοι. On the subject itself, Beda remarks, “ He does 
not speak of the martyrs alone: they are washed in their own blood.” 
Thus he has already‘ correctly recognized the idea at once obvious, which 
elsewhere is marked by the expression τ, dpviov,> that the whiteness of the 
robes has been produced by the (atoning and redeeming) blood of Christ as 
the Lamb of God.* But the idea recognized, in general, by Beda, of the 
cleansing power of martyrdom, has been introduced into the text not only 
by expositors like N. de Lyra, who regards the blood of the Lamb as the 
blood of martyrs, “because it is the blood of his members,” but even by 
Ew. i., manifestly because of his erroneous reference of ver. 9 sqq. to mar- 
tyrs, as he remarks, “by the blood of Christ, i.e., the death which they 
endured because of Christ’s doctrine, and having followed in this the exam- 
ple of Christ,” etc. It is, in other respects, contrary to the nature of the 


1 Ziill., Hengstenb. 4 Cf. Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, 
2 Gen. v. 20, iii. 16 sqq. Beng. Bleek; also Ew. ii. 5 Cf. v. 6. 
8 Cf. Ewald, De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 6 Cf. i. 5; Eph. v. 25 sqq.; 1 Johni. 7. 


- 


954 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


figures, when Hengstenb. tries to distinguish the washing from the making 
white, and refers the former to the forgiveness of sins, and the latter to sanc- 
tification; such a washing, however, is designated whereby the robes are 
made white. The delicate feature of correct ethics is also here to be noted, 
which lies in the fact that they who (in their earthly life) have washed 
their garments white in the blood of the Lamb appear in the future life 
attired in white clothing.1 What follows also ver. 15, in its connection with 
διὰ τοῦτο, depends upon the fundamental view which has been explained: 
those hosts could not stand before God’s throne, beneath the protection of 
his shadow, if, through the temptation of the great tribulation, they had not 
carried unsoiled the garments which had been made white in the blood of 
the Lamb. Concerning the tenses, the present (cioly, λατρεύουσιν, ver. 15a) 
and the future (σκηνώσει, «7... ver. 15b-17), see on of ἐρχόμενοι (ver. 14). 
To refer the entire discourse (vv. 15-17) to earthly circumstances,? is so 
manifestly contrary to the tenor of the words, that the entire conception of 
ch. vii., which introduces such absurdities, contradicts itself. — εἰσιν ἐνώπιον 
τοὺ θρόνου r. 9. Already, the fact that they are there is blessedness. Cf. iv. 
4, xxi. 3, xxii. 4; John xvii. 24; 1 John iii. 2; Phil. i. 23; 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 
καὶ λατρεύουσιν, x.7.A, Cf. iv. 8 sqq., v- 8 sqq., xxil. 8. [Ὁ 15 the glory of the 
priestly service in heaven ; hence, ἐν τῷ ναῷ abrov.? — ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτάς. “ Speak- 
ing after our custom, eternity is nevertheless meant.” 4— καὶ ὁ καθῆμενος --- 
σκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. In accord with Lev. xxvi. 11, Isa. iv. 5, Ezek. xxxvii. 
27,5 here the eternal, immediate, personal presence of God enthroned in his 
glory, and the holiness and blessedness of believers perfected therein, are 
described, viz., the shechinah of God over them, but no more, as in an earthly 
covering, by pillars of smoke and fire, but in its heavenly immediateness, so 
that the σκηνοὺν of the enthroned One harmonizes with the εἷναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ 
θρόνου τ. θ. of the blessed. The further description also of heavenly freedom 
from pain (ver. 16), and eternal refreshment and consolation (ver. 17; cf. 
xxi. 4), is given with the old prophetic features.” — πᾶν καῦμα, after the spe- 
cial ὁ ἥλιος, is general; no kind of heat, whatever it may be, e.g., that of 
scorching wind.’ — ὅτι τὸ ἀρνίον, κιτίλ. Isa. lxix. 10, declares the reason: 
“for® he that hath mercy on them shall lead them,}° even by the springs of 
water shall he guide them.”!!_ By writing instead of this,!? τὸ ἀρνίον, κ-τ.1.» 
John designates the mediatorship of Christ, the Lamb, through whose blood 
especially,18 believers have come where they now stand, and who also feeds 
his own people there,!4 and leads them unto living fountains of waters. An 
allusion to the position of the Lamb as mediator lies, besides, in the desig- 
nation τὸ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ θρόνου. This formula is impossible with the entirely 


1 Cf, iii. 4, xix. 8. 6 Cf. xxi. 3. : 
2 Grot., on ver. 15: ‘‘Here at Pella, God 7 Cf. Isa. xlix. 10, xxv. 8. 
kept them safe from all the very great evils 8 De Wette. 
which await the contumacious Jews; ’”’ on ver. 9 Incorrectly, LXX.: ἀλλά. 
16, ““ They shall have whence they may live.” 10 Incorrectly, LXX.: παρακαλέσει. 
3 Cf. the ἱερεῖς (i. 6, v. 10), which pertains 11 Inaccurately, LXX.: καὶ διὰ πηγῶν ὑδάτων 
already to the earthly life of believers. ἄξει αὐτούς. 
4 Beda. 12 Cf. De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 


5 De Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 13 Cf. v. 9. 14 Cf. xiv. 1 sqq. 


NOTES. 255 


synonymous ἐν μεσῷ τοῦ θρόνου, vv. 5, 6, as De Wette wishes, because there 
the position of the Lamb is not “in the midst of the throne,” but “in the 
midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders ;1 
but here the position of the Lamb is described entirely apart from the circle 
of the four beasts and the elders, and alone with reference to the throne. 
Only the present statement dare not stand in opposition to v.6. Ewald’s 
explanation: “towards the midst of the throne, i.e., near the throne, placed 
by the Divine throne,” is too vague, and ignores the peculiar significance of 
the ἀνὰ μέσον ; although the translation, “towards the midst of the throne,” 
is perfectly correct.2 The difficulty of the idea lies in the fact that, while in 
other places the ἀνὰ μέσον refers® to a mass, or at least to two parts, in 
whose midst something is arranged,5 here ἀνὰ μέσον is attached to the single 
conception τοῦ θρόνου, so that the simple “ between,” which necessarily corre- 
sponds with the ἐν μέσῳ, v. 6, is here entirely inadmissible. But the solu- 
tion lies in the way indicated by Ewald: the Lamb is so placed as to be 
turned towards the midst of the throne; it therefore stands directly before 
the throne,*—a statement perfectly harmonizing with the description of 
v. 6. If, however, the Lamb be beheld directly before the throne of God, 
or in the midst of the circle of representatives of believers who surround 
God’s throne, it always has the same position between Him who sits on 
the throne, and the four beings and twenty-four elders who stand around; 
i.e., the form of the Lamb in itself, as well as this position, designates 
Christ as the atoning mediator. Hence it is just as little liable to exception, 
that there is ascribed here to the Lamb both a ποιμαίνειν and a ὁδηγεῖν, as 
comprising the Lamb’s entire activity.§ — ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων. The em- 
phatic prefixing of ζωῆς is precisely like that of σαρκός, 1 Pet. iii. 21.9 On 
the subject itself, cf. xxii. 1. — καὶ ἐξαλείψει, κιτιΔ. Cf. xxi. 4; Isa. xxv. 8. 
It is not without many tears that they come out of great tribulation (ver. 
14); but when they have overcome, God himself shall dry their tears, and 
change their weeping into joy.!° [See Note LV., p. 258.] 


ΝΟΤΕΒ BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


111. Ver. 3. σφραγισώμεν. / 


Beck: ‘‘ Sealing, in general, serves partly for authentication or confirmation, 
partly for assurance. Here it is accomplished by means of the seal of the living 
God, the Divine, royal seal (ver. 2). Divine sealing designates a real act, a 
covenant act, whereby the one who receives it is acknowledged and authen- 
ticated as belonging to God by an actual mark of discrimination (Rom. iv. 11). 
In the N. T. sense, the Holy Spirit is the Divine seal of the covenant, and the 


1 See on the passage. δ Cf. Winer, p. 372. 
2 Against Hengstenb., who defends the su- 6 Ew. ii.: ‘“‘an der Mitte des Stuhles.” 
perficial translation ‘‘ between, in the midst.” 7It is, nevertheless, the proper person 


8 Exod. xi.7; Ezek. xxii. 16; 1 Kings v.12; Christ who is understood as the Shepherd of 
Judg. xv. 4; LXX.; also 1 Cor. vi. 5. Cf., on his people. Cf. Ps. xxiii.1; 1 Pet. ii.12; John 
this, Meyer. x. 12. 8 5:7 Βα. 

4 Matt. xiii. 25; Mark vii. 31; Isa. lvii. 5. 9 Beng. 10 Cf. Ps. cxxvi. 5 sq. 


256 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


sealing occurs by the communication of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. i. 22; Eph. i. 18, 
iv. 30). The idea of the living God is concentrated especially in the quickening 
Spirit of the new covenant. By the communication of this Spirit, man is not 
merely assured of, or promised, something new, but something real is given 
him. There is then in man a new spirit entirely different from what he 
previously had; a spirit such as was manifested in Christ, and which thus 
animates him with an entirely different inner life from what he had before, a 
life actually rooted and nourished in Christ and God. A result of this com- 
munication of the spirit is that they who receive it are elect (1 Thess. i. 4 sq.; 
2 Thess. ii. 18). At the same time, they are armed by the Spirit, and by his 
power assured against a fall and wandering astray (Rev. iii. 10; 2 Tim. i. 7, 12, 


14; 1 Pet. i. 5; 1 John iv. 4, v. 18). The reference to error and a fall dare not 


be here excluded, as, at the crisis of the world, the wisdom, patience, and 
fidelity of believers will, in various ways, be expressly put to the test (xiii. 8-10, 
xiv. 12). But, as in ch. vii. 3, the sealing is presented in direct contrast with 
the harm inflicted upon the world, there is in this sealing also a security, by 
God’s preservation, against the plagues from God, impending over the world. 
Cf., as analogies, Exod. xii. 7, 18; Ezek. ix. 4. But this does not prevent 
those sealed against the Divine judgments and temptations, from having still to 
suffer many troubles from men, of whom the greater part, even during the Divine 
judgment, do not come to repentance, but rather are guilty of all sorts of mani- 
festations of godlessness. Cf. the epistles, chs. ii. and iii.; also vi. 11, xiii. 10, 
15; Matt. xxiv. 9. In the time of expectation, therefore (vi. 11), in the nearness 
of God’s judgments, there occurs a sealing, i.e., an especial spiritual strengthen- 
ing and providential assurance of those elected as belonging to the people of 
God. According to the character of the book, the sealing is typified before the 
sight of John; hence an angel appears with a golden seal in his hand, although 
the Divine sealing is the work of the Spirit of God, and not of an angel. The 
sealing further occurs by an impression on the forehead, and thus is externally 
imparted to the sealed. If we compare ch. xiv. 1, where the same number, one 
hundred and forty-four thousand, recurs, only in another connection, it is the 
name of the Father of Jesus Christ that is written or impressed as a mark 
upon the forehead. The sealing itself is not there mentioned, since this had 
preceded the persecution; there the one hundred and forty-four thousand have 
experienced both sealing and persecution. The seal contains the name of the 
owner; after they have been sealed on the forehead with God’s seal, they con- 
tinue to carry there God’s name. Cf. also iii. 12, xxii. 4. Therefore by the seal 
of God on the forehead is designated the Divine disposition externally express- 
ing itself in their personal conduct, and thereby also giving assurance exter- 
nally that marks them as belonging to God. The antithesis to this mark of 
"God is the mark of the beast on the forehead (xiii. 16). Gebhardt: ‘‘ A symbol 
of the Divine assurance that his servants should not be smitten by the greater 
plagues which were yet to come.”’ 


LIII. Ver. 4. τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ. 


Gebhardt emphatically dissents from the limitation of the one hundred and 
forty-four thousand to converted Israelites: ‘‘ Neither the Jews in contrast with 
the Gentiles, nor the Christian Jews in distinction from the Christian Gentiles, 
but Christians, the true Israelites, whether Jews or Gentiles. The twelve tribes, 
of the children of Israel are therefore identical with the people of God; only the 


NOTES. 257 


latter are described in O. T. style, or typically, and as a living great organism.”’ 
‘‘ Where the purpose is to confirm Christians in their confidence in God, or to 
impress on their mind their high dignity, they are represented as the true Israel, 
as the numbered or chosen one hundred and forty-four thousand.’’ So Philippi 
(Kirch. Glaubenslehre, iv. iii. 251): ‘‘ The one hundred and forty-four thousand 
sealed out of all the tribes of the children of Israel are not only Christians 
among the Jews, upon which see Calov., Ewald, De Wette, Hengstenb., Klief., 
etc.; but rather the entire congregation of believers is meant, the true spiritual 
Israel, who have been preserved from all the plagues to be inflicted on the 
world.’’ Beck also argues against the view advocated by our author, but 
regards those sealed as elect persons among believers: ‘‘ The υἱοι Ἰσραηλ here 
mentioned are ancient Israel as little as Jerusalem in the Apocalypse is ancient 
Jerusalem, or as little as, in general, the temple, altar, candlesticks, Balaam, 
Jezebel, Jews, etc., above, designate the ancient historical objects and persons; 
but the latter are only the types of that which corresponds in the Christian con- 


-gregation. So the name Israelites here is likewise typical. The twelve tribes of 


the children of Israel, from whom the choice is made, have, in the Apocalypse, 
their metropolis in the New Jerusalem, which, according to xxi. 12, 14, has the 
names of the twelve tribes of Israel on its doors, and is built upon the foundation 
of the twelve apostles. The name of this new Jerusalem, as the N. T. city of God, 
is, according to iii. 12, stamped, together with the name of the N. T. God (my 
God, i.e., Jesus Christ), and, therefore, with the seal of God here mentioned with 
respect to the children of Israel, upon those who, by fidelity to the word of Jesus 
Christ, have proved conquerors in the time of trial. Thus it is also expressly 
said of the one hundred and forty-four thousand designated in xiv. 3, that they 
were ‘ purchased from the earth,’ or (ver. 4) ‘from among men,’ from human- 
ity, and, therefore, not merely from the Jewish nation; cf. v. 9. In the Apoca- 
lypse, the entire development of the kingdom is stated universally. It has 
thus, also, nothing whatever to do with a particularistic national sphere, or with 
the history of a particular people, but with the universal national sphere, with the 
universal judgment and universal salvation, and, therefore, with a universal 
and not a partial, holy nation; cf. x. 11. But this conception is conformable 
also to the N. T. fundamental view. According to this, there is awarded to 
ancient Israel, indeed, the first participation in universal grace (Rom. i. 16, xi. 
25-32), but no such particular preference as the sealing before the plagues, so 
that, therefore, all Gentile Christians must be subject thereto. The national 
distinction between Jew and Gentile, the distinction of the flesh, is removed in 
the fellowship of the new covenant (John x. 16, xi. 52). What unites them as 
one new people of God is the unity of faith and life on the basis of the new, 
spiritual type of humanity formed in Jesus Christ. Cf. Acts xv. 7-9; Rom. ii. 28. 
Cf. ver. 29 with ver. 26; Eph. ii. 13-15, 18, iii. 3-6; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 26-28; 
Col. iii. 11. Since the Christian community, formed of both nationalities, is 
the true bearer of the Divine covenant, the name of Israel and its twelve tribes 
is, accordingly, transferred to the Christian Church. Only in its unity and 
organization of spirit, the typical Israel finds its full expression, its fulfilment, 
as it formerly presented only a union and organization of people of God which 
was of the flesh (Rom. ix. 6-8). Cf. Gal. iv. 28; Rom. ix. 24 sqq., x. 11-13: 
Gal. iii. 7, iv. 26, vi. 15 sq. Cf. Phil. iii. 3; 1 Pet. i. 1, with ii. 9; Matt. xix. 28 
with viii. 11 sq. and xxviii. 19; Rev. xviii. 4; and, finally, xxi. 12, 14, the climax 
of the entire view. . . . The number of the sealed in the Apoc. comprises, 
therefore, neither merely converted Jews (whether of the first or the last times), 


258 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


nor all Christendom, or the entire number of believers, but (ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς) a 
selection from all tribes or sections of believers without distinction of Jewish 
or heathen origin. They are the approved spiritual Christians, the τέλειοι (Phil. 
iii. 13 sqq.); and their sealing occurs by their receiving the new seal of the 
covenant, the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son in special power and 
fulness, so that he appears in a visible mark, characterizing their entire 
conduct, and secures them against the trials pertaining to the empire of the 
world, especially on the part of a spurious Christianity (cf. Matt. xxiv. 21-25; 
1 John ii. 18, 20, 27), and against the judgments of God proceeding through the 
world.”’ 


LIV. Ver. 9. ὄχλος πολύς. 


‘‘ Where the mercy and love of God are praised, Christians are represented as 
an innumerable multitude’’ (De Wette, Gebhardt). Beck, however, urges the dis- 
tinction from those mentioned in vv. 3-8: ‘‘ This appearance forms manifestly a 
contrast with what precedes. For: 1. The definite one hundred and forty-four 
thousand is opposed by the innumerable multitude. 2, ἐκ παντὸς ἔθνους is con- 
trasted with ἐκ πάσῆς φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραῆλ. 3. Ver. 14. The οἱ ἐρχόμενοι ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως 
τῆς μεγάλης must have passed through the great tribulation in contrast with the 
elect secured therefrom already before its beginning (ver. 2 sqq.). 4. Finally, 
there is a contrast in the placing of the great multitude in heaven (ver. 9, ἐνώπιον 
Tov θρόνου), while the theatre in the preceding ver. 3 is the earth. Here, then, 
those appear who have passed through the visitation of judgment, and suffered, 
although they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of 
the Lamb; i.e., they have availed themselves of the cleansing efficacy offered in 
Christ (ver. 14), for participation in which they were not aroused until by perse- 
cution. Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 12-15. Of the death of martyrs, which has been conjec- 
tured, nothing is here said. By the side, therefore, of the sealed first-fruits, 
appear those who have not been purified until by the tribulation. From them 
proceeds an innumerable multitude of triumphing conquerors. . . . To the apos- 
tolic, Christian, germinal Church, to the elect from the Divine-covenant people, 
there is added the elect from all humanity. Since, however (ver. 3 sqq.), the 
people of God itself is distinguished according to tribes, and, from these tribes, 
the sealed are taken only as a selection, and thus, also, among the tribes (ver. 9) 
are comprised those who belong to the people of God, i.e., Jews and Christians, 
in like manner, the πᾶν ἔθνος includes the entire heathen world. Therefore, 
after the great period of tribulation (Matt. xxiv. 21-29), and through it, a 
collection of the saved still continues, from all humanity, without distinction 
of religion, whether heathen, or Jewish, or Christian (cf. Rom. ii. 7-10), as 
well as without distinction of political relations (λαῶν) and languages (γλωσσῶν). 
For, since there is no section of the human world that does not furnish its 
contingent to those saved from the great tribulation, an innumerable multitude 
is formed, although relatively the elect are few (Matt. xx. 16).” 


LV. Vv. 14-17. 


Gebhardt: ‘‘The heavenly promises add nothing new to those already 
available for the earthly Christian life. It is evident that the promise of 
deliverance from tribulation, rest from labor, cessation from suffering, as well 
as perpetual joy after trial overcome, belong only to heaven. But, otherwise, 


NOTES. 259 


the contents of future blessedness are distinguished from those in the promises 
only in particular symbolic features, and they are still, in nature, the same. The 
Christian has this blessedness at the moment of his becoming a Christian; but 
what he possesses and does and is here, in conflict and growth, amidst the 
discrepancy of his real nature with its manifestation in his life, and still more 
with the conduct of the world, he possesses and does and is there, in rest and 
realization.”’ 


* 


260 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


Ver. 1. Instead of ὅτε (32), which comes from vi. 1, 3, etc., read ὅταν (A, C, 
Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). — Ver. 3. ἕνα δώσει. So, properly, Lach., Tisch. [W. 
and H.], in accord with A, C,&. Emendations are δώσῃ (Elz., Beng., Griesb., 
Matth.) and δῷ (6, 9, al., in Wetst.). — Ver. 7. The words καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς γῆς 
κατεκώε, which are lacking in the Elz. text, are restored by Beng., Griesb., and 
modern editors, upon the authority of decisive witnesses. — Ver. 9. διεφθάρησαν. 
So A, &, 10, 12, al., Andr., ed. Compl. Plant., Genev., Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. 
and H.]. The διεφθάρη (Elz.) is an emendation after the analogy of ver. 7.— 
Ver. 11. ἐγένετο. So A, 8, 2, 4, 6, al., Beng., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. 
Incorrectly, Elz.: γίνεται, ---- Ver. 18. ἀετοῦ. So, already, Beng., Griesb. The 
modification ἀγγέλου (Elz.) has no critical value whatever. Nevertheless, many 
expositors, Vitr., L. Twells in Wolf, etc., have advocated ἀγγέλου on the same 
ground, from which has proceeded not only this alteration, but also the single 
variation ἀγγέλου ὡς ἀετοῦ (Wetst.); viz., because the function ascribed to the 
eagle seems better adapted to an angel. (Cf. xiv. 6.) Heinrichs, who does not 
doubt the correctness of the reading ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ, would have an ὡς supplied before 
ἀετοῦ, and then explain: ‘‘ An angel flying through the heaven with the swiftness 
of an eagle.’”” §& has αἐτοῦ without ἑνὸς. 


From the seventh seal, now opened, there proceeds, not as from each of 
the first six, a single vision, but a series of visions, which not only stand like 
those seals in a progressive connection with one another, but also, even at 
the end, extend again into a new series of visions.1_ After the opening of 
the seventh seal, silence for half an hour intervenes in heaven, during which 
seven angels appear who receive trumpets; and since then, after a certain 
action performed by another angel (ver. 3 sqq.), those seven angels, one after 
another, sound on their trumpets, scenes are presented to the gazing prophet, 
which, according to the analogy of the visions proceeding from the opened 


seals, describe what is to happen.? Nothing is here to be said concerning: 


the reading of the book-roll now opened.# 

Ver. 1. ὅταν. In the sense of ὅτε; as is not unusual among the Byzan- 
tines. — σιγὴ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὡς quiwpov. The silence in heaven, lasting about® a 
half-hour, begins at the place where the songs of praise still resound, vii. 
10 sqq. The voice also of the elder who speaks immediately before the 
opening of the seventh seal is silent. When the Lamb took the book with 
the seven seals, the music of the harp and the song of praise resounded in 


1 xi. 15 sqq. 2 Cf. iv. 1. 5 Winer, p. 290. 
3 Ew. ii. 6 ws: cf. John i. 40, vi. 19, xi. 18; Mark v. 
4 See Critical Notes. 13; Luke viii. 42. 


CHAP. VIII. 1. 261 


_ heaven, v. 8 8566. ; also at the opening of the first six seals, it was in many 
ways audible ;1 but when the last seal is opened, a profound silence ensues. 
The reason for this is the anxious expectation of the inhabitants of heaven, 
who not only after the precedency of the sixth seal must now expect the 
final decisive catastrophe, but, also, can infer the proximity of that catas- 
trophe from the appearing of the seven angels, and their being furnished 
with trumpets. The σιγὴ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is thus a “silent expectation and con- 
templation of the seven trumpets,” ? and, as an expression of “the stupor of 
the heavenly beings,” belongs to “the adornment and fitness of the dramatic 
scene.” Thus, essentially, Andr., Areth., Par., Vieg., Rib., Aret., Calov., 
Beng., Ew., De Wette, Stern, Ebrard, all of whom are one on the main 
point,* that the σιγῇ does not compose the entire contents of the seventh seal, 
but that rather from this last seal the entire series of trumpet-visions is 
developed. If this is denied, as by Vitr., and recently by Hengstenb., not 
only is the organic connection of the visions as a whole rent, —since “the 
group of the seven trumpets” appears immediately beside “the group of 
the seven seals,” but results follow with respect to the exposition as a 
whole, and in its details, that are entirely inadmissible. Hengstenb. inter- 
prets the σιγὴ ἐν τ. ovp., as the silencing of the enemies of Christ and his 
Church, which corresponds with their mourning,® and is regarded as caused 
by the punishments of the preceding six seals. And, besides, the ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, 
which alone is strong enough to render this mode of statement impossible, 
is explained away by the remark: “ Heaven here comes into consideration 
only as a theatre (iv. 1, xii. 1). In reality the silence belongs to the earth”! 
— Vitr. seeks, in a better way, to meet the demands of the text. He refutes, 
first, the view according to which it is thought that in vv. 1-6 the entire 
contents of the seventh seal are described,’ by the excellent remark that 
already, in ver. 2, the angels of the trumpets enter, and that vv. 2-6 contain 
in general a certain preparation for ver. 7 sqq. But while Vitr. thus prop- 
erly hesitates to sunder ver. 2 sqq. from ver. 7 sqq., he separates ver. 1 from 
ver. 2 sqq. by finding in ver. 1 the contents of the seventh seal, i.e., the com- 
plete conclusion of the series of seal-visions, according to their prophetic 
significance extending until the end of the world, which, in their way, 
comprise the entire breadth of Apocalyptic prophecy; for from this it neces- 
sarily follows that the prophecy begins again with the first trumpet-vision, 
which runs parallel to the first seal-vision, ete. The σιγὴ ἐν τ. obp. designates, 
according to Vitr., “the condition of the most recent period of the Church, 
in which the Church in the possession of peace, tranquillity, and an abun- 
dance of all spiritual blessings, celebrates a triumph over its enemies.” 
This σιγῆ, therefore, actually lasts a long time, although it appears to John 
a half-hour,’—as Lange with entire consistency says, one thousand years.? - 


1 vi. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12. 6 Matt. xxiv. 30. 

2 C. a Lap. ὃ Hicbh. 7 Braun, Select. Sacr., ti. ec. 1. 

4 Cf. also Grot., Wetst., Herder, etc., who 8 Cf. Aret., Bengel; the latter of whom 
in other respects deny the reference of the reckoned the ἡμίμωρον as about four ordinary 
whole. days. 


5 Hengstenb. 9 Cf. also Beda, Hofm., etc. 


262 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


The connection with the trumpet-visions lies in the fact that here “the Spirit 
explains in what way and by what steps God led the Church into that state,” 
viz., as those trumpet-visions describe: “ Evils intended for the punishment | 
of the Roman Empire, the enemy of the Church of Christ, to be terminated 
in the total destruction of the same empire.” There are two main points 
characteristic of this mode of conception, which is best advocated by Vitr., in 
which, however, the distortion is evident; viz., the explanation of the σιγὴ ἐν 
τ. οὐρ., and the statement of the connection with the trumpet-visions. If it is 
assumed that the seventh seal brings nothing else than that σιγὴ; ---- although 
as well after the events of the first six seals, as after the interposed ch. vii , a 
certain fulness of significant contents is to be expected, — the question for 
which neither reasons are assigned, nor to which an answer is in any way 
given in the context itself, is raised; viz., as to what that σιγῇ “ means,” ie , 
what historical fact, what state of the world or Church, is typified by that 
σιγή whose allegorical meaning is presupposed. And this question arbitrarily 
raised can be answered only arbitrarily: the σιγῇ means the sabbath rest of 
the Church after the plagues of the first six seals,1 “the beginning of the 
eternal rest,” the thousand-years rest before the final end,’ or perhaps, in 
case the sixth seal be not regarded as extending so far, the rest of the 
Church under Constantine. As to what the ovy7 “means,” expositors of an 
entirely different class have investigated also when they even with formal 
correctness acknowledged that not only does the seventh seal contain that 
σιγή, but also the seven trumpets introduce it. Here belong especially the 
expositors who refer ch. viii. also to the events of the Romano-Judaic war. 
According to Grot., the σιγὴ (ἐν τ. obp.) is the brief rest of the winds of vii. 1 
(which are at the four corners of the earth 4). Wetst. explains more minutely: 
“ Since all things now looked to a revolt of the Jews, a brief pause followed 
by the intervention of Agrippa and the priests.” Alcas.: “The remarkable 
forbearance of Christians who silently endured persecution from the Jews.” 
Against all these arbitrary explanations, we must hold fast simply'to the 
text, which says that at the opening of the seventh seal a profound silence 
occurred in heaven, where the sealed book was opened,—a silence which 
_ “signifies” something earthly, as little as the speech and songs heard in 

heaven at the opening of the preceding seals. But thereby the knowledge 
is gained that such silence occurs just because of the peculiar contents of 
this seal. Thereby, besides, the exposition is preserved from the second 
offence against the context, with which not only Beda but also Ebrard, ete., 
are chargeable, viz., the idea of a recapitulation in the entire series of trum- 
pet-visions. For what Beda expressly says®is said essentially not only by 
Vitr., but also, e.g., by Ebrard, when he passes the opinion that in the trum- 
pets, “a retrogression, as it were, is taken,” viz., by the representation “ of 
classes and kinds of judicial punishments which belong only to the godless,’ 


1 Beda, Hofm., Christiani. 6 «‘ But now he recapitulates from the ori- 
2 Vict., Primas. gin, in order to say the same things in another 
3 Lange. way.” 

4 Laun, Brightm. 7 Cf., on the other hand, the general remarks 


5 Josephus, B. J,, ii. 15, 2. above on ch. vii. 


CHAP. VIII. 2. 263 


and that, too, not first after or with the sixth seal, but even already before.” 
In exegetical principle, this exposition stands upon a line with the one of N. 
de Lyra, who, by the theory of recapitulation, explains that only the conflict 
of the Church with heretics is portrayed, after! its conflict against tyrants, 
the heathen oppressors, is stated. Accordingly, the exposition in the 
trumpet-visions can recur again to the centuries of Church history, from 
which, on the other side, all sort of facts have already been gathered for 
ch. vi., in order to show the fulfilment of prophecy. The only apparent 
occasion which the context gives for the idea that the trumpet-visions recur 
again before the sixth seal—an idea which has led not only to the further 
statement that the individual trumpets in some way concur with the indi- 
vidual seals, but also to numberless and unlimited attempts to find the fulfil- 
ment of the individual trumpet-visions in historical events — lies in the fact 
that the final catastrophe, the extreme end, whose description is to be ex- 
pected after chs. vi. and vii. in the seventh seal, does not yet, at least imme- 
diately, appear.? But the expedient adopted here by many expositors to 
limit the contents of the seventh seal to ver. 1, and to understand the σιγὴ ἐν 
τ. οὖρ. as the eternal rest of the perfected Church, or the eternal silencing of 
condemned enemies, has been proved to be mistaken. Yet that difficulty 
is solved by the view, attained already by Ew., Liicke, De Wette, Rinck,? 
into the skilful, carefully designed plan of the entire book, which here, just 
from the fact that from the last seal a new series of visions is to proceed, 
describes the trial of the patience of saints who are regarded as awaiting 
the day of the Lord;* but at the same time the expectation excited by the 
events of the first six seals, and increased by the entire ch. vii., as well as 
by the silence occurring at the opening of the seventh seal, that in this last 
seal the final completion is to come, in no way deceives, since the full con- 
clusion is actually disclosed in the seventh seal, although only through a 
long series of visions in whose chain the trumpet-visions themselves form 
only the first members. 

Ver. 2. καὶ εἶδον. By the same formula, John has indicated what the 
seals previously opened enabled him to behold. What he describes in vv. 
2-6, he has therefore beheld, not after the conclusion of the silence, ver. 1,7 
but during 10.5 The entire scene is silent, until (ver. 5) by the fire cast into 
the earth, thunderings and voices (from beneath, from the earth) aré aroused, 
which then, interrupting the silence in heaven, give the signal, as it were, to 
the angels who are to use the trumpets received already in ver. 2. — τοὺς ἑπτὰ 
ἀγγέλους of ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἑστήκασιν. Doubly incorrect, Luther: “ Sieben Engel, 
die da traten vor Gott’’ [“ Seven angels who appeared before God”]. The 
words, as they sound, are to be understood in no way otherwise than that 


1 Up to vi. 17. considerations, it may be said: How can vi. 12 
2 Other reasons, as that asserted by Ebrard: speak of the entire moon, when in viii. 12 the 
‘“*How could the third part of the sun and third of it is already eclipsed? 
moon be darkened (viii. 12), after they have 3 Cf. also Beng. 
first lost all their ight’ (vi. 12) ? —- from which 4 Cf. xiii. 10, xiv. 12. 
it would follow that vi. 12 actually belongs 5 Cf. Introduction, p. . 
after viii. 12,— may be contradicted directly Sh Vis dy 2; δὲ. 8. 12. 


from their own standpoint. For against such 7 Ebrard. 8 Aret., Herd., Rinck. 


264 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN 
John, just as Tob. xii. 15,1 speaks of seven particular angels, who, with a 
certain precedency above all the rest, stand before God. They are not 
called “archangels.”? They can be identified® with the seven spirits of 
God‘ only by misunderstanding that expression. But when Hengstenb. 
and Ebrard assert that the number of angels who stand before God is fixed 
at seven only because of the seven trumpets, and do not hinder us from 
thinking of more than just seven to whom belongs the prerogative of “ stand- 
ing before God; ” and when Ebrard, in order to give another application to 
the definite article which conflicts with this, attempts to contrast the seven 
angels, ver. 2, to the four angels, vii. 1,— they are only useless pretexts, in 
order to avoid the unambiguously expressed idea of just seven angels stand- 
ing before God. The older interpreters, as Luther, Vitr., reached the same 
conclusion more readily by regarding the article as a Heb. redundancy; yet 
many 8150 have without prejudice recognized the thought required by the 
text. — καὶ ἐδόθησαν αὐτοῖς ἑπτὰ σάλπιγγες. The purpose becomes immediately 
manifest to John; cf. vv. 6,7 sqq. To the inhabitants of heaven, who, after 
the opening of the seal, see how to those chief angels trumpets are given, the 
vast significance of this matter is clear in advance: hence their silence. 

Vv. 3-5. ἄλλος ἄγγελος. The repeated® reference here to Christ’? has 
occasioned the greatest number of arbitrary expedients in the interpreta- 
tion of what follows: e.g., that by ἔχων λιβ. ypve., reference is made to the 
self-sacrifice of Christ;® that the éyéwoev, x.7.2., ver. 5, is to be understood 
of the fulness of the Godhead, or Spirit, in Christ ;® that the fire cast upon 
the earth is to be regarded as a gracious visitation,!° as the power of the 
gospel concerning Christ’s love;!4 and the gwvai, βρονταί, ἀστραπαΐῖ, of the 
words and miracles of Christ, and σείσμος, of the movement occasioned 
thereby among the hearers.12. The “other angel,” just as the one mentioned 
in vii. 2, is to be regarded an actual angel;18 yet the text gives no more 
accurate designation whatever.!4 — ἐστάθη ἐπὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. The ἐπὶ does 
not mean juzta, “ alongside of,” and nothing more; 15 but it designates with 
evident exactness, that the angel so presents himself at the altar, that he 
rises above it.6— The question started here, as on vi. 9, as to whether the 
altar is to be regarded an altar of incense,’ or an altar for burnt offerings,1® 
will be decided not only from the context in itself, but also from the seem- 
ing type, Lev. xvi. 12; and Ebrard thus comes to the decision that the altar, 
mentioned ver. 3a (ἐπὶ τ. θυσιαστ.) and ver. 5, is the altar for burnt offerings, 
while “the golden altar” (ver. 8b) is the altar of incense. But as the 


9 John iii. 34; Col. ii.9. Beda. 


1 “1 am Raphael, one of the seven holy 
angels, which present the prayers of the saints, 
and which go in and out before the glory of 
the Holy One.” 

2 De Wette, Stern. 

3 Aret., Ew. 

4 iv. 5. 

5 C. a Lap., Beng. 

6 Οἱ, vii. 2. 

7 Beda, Vieg., Zeger, Vitr., Calov., BOhmer. 

8 “Himself having become the censer”’ 
(Beda). 


10 Luke xii. 49. Beda. 

11 Calov. 

12 Beda, etc. 

13 So here also Hengstenb. 

14 Against Grot.: ‘ The angel of the prayers 
of the Church.” 

15 Grot., Beng.; cf. also Hengstenb., Ebrard, 
etc. 

16 Cf, Am. ix. 1. 

17 Grot., De Wette, Hengstenb. 

18 Vitr., Beng., Ziill., Hofm. 


CHAP. VIII. 3-5. 265 


question itself is not without an arbitrary assumption, so the answers, also, 
are without sufficient foundation in the context, into which strange concep- 
tions of many kinds have entered. As to the appeal to Lev. xvi., that pas- 
sage is essentially different from ours, because it is there said that the high 
priest, on the great day of atonement, is to take coals in a censer from the 
altar of burnt offerings, and with it and the incense strewed thereon, shall 
come, not to the altar of incense in the sanctuary,! but to the ark of the cove- 
nant within the holy of holies. Nothing, therefore, is said in Lev. xvi. 12, of 
the altar of incense, so that the analogy of that passage, even apart from a 
dissimilarity otherwise in the whole and in details, renders any proof impos- 
sible that “the golden altar,” ver. 3, is the altar of incense. In general, 
however, the entire description of heavenly locality, as it is presented in iv. 1, 
gives us no right whatever for conceiving of the same as after the model 
of the earthly temple with a holy of holies, a holy place, a veil, different 
altars, etc., whereby then such conceptions are rendered necessary, as that 
of Ziill., Hengstenb., that in ch. iv. and this passage, the veil before the 
holy of holies is closed, but in xi. 19 it is opened; or that of Hofm., that 
we must fancy the roof of the heavenly temple absent, in order to render 
possible the idea that ‘‘ Jehovah appears enthroned above the cherubim, yet 
without a sight being gained of the ark of the covenant.” Entirely arbi- 
trary, also, is the explanation of Ebrard: “that the entire scene, ch. iv., was 
plainly visible, indeed, at the beginning without the temple, and that later? 
a heavenly temple appeared, as it were, upon a lower terrace, below and in 
front of the elevation on which the throne stood.” The description of the 
scenery, iv. 1 sqq., is destitute throughout of any express representation of 
a heavenly temple. Such a representation, including the ark of the cove- 
nant, appears first at xi. 19,3 just where the scene is changed. In the scenery 
which has remained unchanged from iv. 1, “the altar” becomes noticeable 
in vi. 9, which, according to the context, must be regarded as having a cer- 
tain analogy with the altar of burnt-offering, although on this account it must 
not be considered that the entire heavenly locality, with the throne of God, 
and “the sea of glass,” appears as the temple. For the article already 
compels us to identify the altar mentioned in ver. 3a with that of vi. 9. To 
infer, however, that, as in ver. 3a, only τ. θυσιαστ., and in ver. 90, τ. θυσιαστ. τὸ 
χρυσὸυν is mentioned, so in two clauses of ver. 3 two different altars are desig- 
nated, is a precipitate inference, since it is not at all remarkable that a more 
definite description is not given until ver. 3), where an employment at the 
altar is spoken of. On the altar, which in vi. 9 appears as’in a certain re- 
spect having the character of an altar of burnt-offering, incense is burned, 
whereby a certain analogy with the altar of incense is obtained; but the 
interpretation is entirely inconceivable, since the altar is regarded as fully 
corresponding neither with the one nor the other.* — ἔχων λιβανωτὸν χρυσοῦν. 
Without doubt λιβανωτός elsewhere means incense;® but no necessity fol- 


1 Ebrard. 4+ Also against Ew. ii. 
2 First in vi. 9, and, in its more definite 5 1 Chron. ix. 29, LXX. Cf. the Scholiast. 
determination, viii. 3 sqq. on Aristophanes, Nubb.; λίβανος --- αὐτὸ τὸ 


PE. XV. Oo δένδρον, λιβανωτὸς δὲ ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ λιβάνοῦ. 


266 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


lows, hence, for writing in this passage, where a vessel for incense is mani- 
festly meant, instead of ὁ λιβανωτός, ἡ λιβανωτίς, Or λιβανωτρίς,: or τὸ λιβανωτόν,2 
of which, besides, the latter form, in its proper sense, cannot be distinguished 
from ὁ λιβανωτός. ---- καὶ £660n —iva δώσει ταῖς προσευχαῖς, x.7.A. It is arbitrary to 
adjust® the difficult dat. ταῖς προσευχαῖς, by erasing the words ταῖς προς τ. dy. 
mavt. (ver. 3) and τ. προς τ. ay. (ver. 4), or to change it into τὰς προσευχάς," or 
without this emendation to explain it in the sense of Grot.5 Incorrect, too, is 
the effort to complete it by substituting ἐν, so as to make the meaning: “In 
the midst of prayers.”® The dat. in ver. 3, in its combination with δώσει, is 
without all difficulty, since it is entirely regular? to express the remote 
object towards which the giving is directed: “in order that he should give 
(the θυμ. road.) to the prayers of all saints.” The significance of this act 
was correctly described already by Calov.: “that he should give ταὶς zp., to 
the prayers of the saints, the same things, i.e., to render these prayers of 
good odor.”® For upon the ground of ver. 3, the expression, ver. 4, καὶ ἀνέβη 
ὁ καπνὸς τῶν θυμιαμάτων ταῖς mpocevyaic τ. dy. is to be explained; but not in the 
mode of Ebrard,® who attempts to interpret it, ὁ καπν. τῶν θυμ. τῶν ταῖς προσευχ. 
δοθέντων [the smoke of the incense given to the prayers], — by regarding the 
dat. here as “standing for the gen. of possession,” after the manner of the 
Hebrew °, —for the immediate combination of the dat. ταῖς np. with the con- 
ception τ. 6vu., is contrary to all Greek modes of thought and expression ; 10 
but the dat. ταῖς προσευχ. can, in its relation to 6 καπν. τ. θυμ., depend only 
upon the verb ἀνέβη, as, in accordance with the idea expressed in ver. 3, it 
must be regarded a dat. commodi: “The smoke of the incense for the prayers 
rose up,” i.e., indicating their being heard.11_ The view of Kliefoth, that the 
incense serves only to carry up the prayers, appears to me not to agree 
well with the expression, ver. 13, iva δώσ. τ. tpocevy. And the idea that the 
prayers are sure of being heard,— not merely rendered capable of being 
granted, — which Klief. tries to avoid, is nevertheless prominent. — Besides, 
the activity of the angel, described in vv. 3, 4, in no way establishes the 
inference of an angelic intercession,!?2 in the sense of Roman-Catholic dog- 
matics. In the first place, it is in general impracticable to transform the 
individual points of Apocalyptic visions directly into dogmatical results ; 
and then, in this case, the function ascribed to the angel, just as to the 
twenty-four elders in v. 8, is in no way properly that of a mediator, but of a 
servant.18 The incense, therefore, which he gives the prayers of saints, has 
first been given him; the angel thus in no way effects it by himself, that the 


[λίβανος --- the tree itself; but λιβανωτὸς, the 
fruit of the tree]; and Ammonius: λίβανος μὲν 
yap κοινῶς καὶ τὸ δένδρον Kai τὸ θυμιώμενον" 
λιβανωτὸς δὲ μόνον τὸ θυμιώμενον [λίβανος, in 
common both the tree and the incense; λιβα- 
νωτὸς, the incense only]. 

1 Grot. 

2 Wolf. 

3 Schottg. 

4 Castalio, Grot. 

5 « He received much incense, that he might 


cast this incense, which is the prayers of all 
saints, upon the altar.” 

6 Hichh., Heinr. 

7 Winer, p. 196. 

8 Cf. Vitr., Ew., De Wette, Ebrard. 

9 Cf. already Castalio, also Ew. ii. 

10 For even the LXX. in the passages cited 
by Ebrard (2 Sam. iii. 2; Deut.i. 3) renders 
the Hebrew preposition by the gen. 

11 Cf. Winer, p. 208. 

12 Boss. 18 Bengel, etc. 


CHAP. VIII. 6, 7-12. 267 


prayers brought by his hand are acceptable to God, but the prayers of the 
saints can be received before God, even without any service of the angel, just 
because they proceed from saints; and that now they are carried before 
God as a heavenly incense-offering by the angel, to be heard and immediately 
fulfilled, lies also not in his own will, but in that of God, who in the seventh 
seal is just about to execute his judgment, and from’ whom himself comes 
the incense, whose perfume, indicating the hearing of the prayers of the 
saints, ascends from the hand of the angel as the ministering spirit,? or the 
fellow-servant of the saints,? who are themselves priests.4— καὶ ἐίληφεν, «.7.A. 
The angel had put down his censer after he had poured its contents (ver. 3) 
on the altar,5 while the smoke ascended (ver. 4). Now (ver. 5) he again 
takes it into his hand for a service that is new, but inwardly connected with 
what has happened in vv. 3, 4; from the same fire of the altar which had 
consumed the incense, he fills his censer, and then casts these glowing coals, 
taken from the altar, upon the earth ;® in consequence of this, there are voices, 
thunderings, lightnings, and an earthquake, the signs of the Divine judg- 
ment now breaking forth, as the seven angels also, as soon as the noise break- 
ing the heavenly silence rises from the earth, make ready to sound their 
trumpets (ver. 6). The inner connection between ver. 5 and vv. 3 and 4 
has been correctly described already by C. a Lap.: “Through the petitions 
of the saints, praying for vengeance upon the godless and their persecutors, 
fiery vengeance, i.e., thunderings, lightnings, and the succeeding plagues of 
the seven angels and trumpets, are sent down upon the godless.”7 The idea 
has been'suggested by Ebrard, that the fire of judgment is that “in which 
the martyrs were burned; ” this is not once said in vi. 10, although in this 
passage the idea is positively expressed that the fire which was cast upon 
the earth is from that whereby the incense was consumed, so that the judg- 
ment, therefore, appears to be a consequence of the heard prayers. For 
hereby, also, the chief contents of the prayers of all saints, and not merely 
those of martyrs (vi. 10), are made known. They have as their object that 
to which all the hopes and endurance of the saints in general are directed, 
viz., the coming of the Lord,’ and the judgment accompanying it; the 
martyrs also in their way prayed for this. 

Ver. 6. The half-hour silence in heaven is now at an end; after the fire, 
whose meaning also becomes manifest by the threatening signs immediately 
following (ver. 5), has been cast upon the earth, the seven angels (ver. 2) 
prepare to sound their trumpets. — ἡτοίμασαν tavtr. This includes the grasp- 
ing of the trumpets in such a way that they could bring them to their 
mouths. 

Vy. 7-12. The first four trumpets are expressly distinguished by ver. 13, 
from the last three. The instrument with which the terrible war alarm 19 
and signals of various other kinds are given}! is employed by the seven 


1 Cf. v. 8, vi. 10. 2 Cf. ver. 5 sqq. 8 Cf. xxii.) 17, 20. 

3 Heb. i. 14. # xix. 10. 9 Cf. C. a Lap., Beng. 

5 Cf. i. 6, v. 10, vii. 15. 10 Job xxxix. 25. 

6 Cf. Ezek. x. 2. 11 Cf. Winer, Rwb., ii. 147: Musikal. In- 


7 Cf. Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb. strum. 


268 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


angels to signalize a series of threatening signs preceding the judgment 
which is to enter at the coming of the Lord; but just as from the opened 
seals the impending visitations themselves come forth, so from the trumpets 
-—the comparison of which, in other respects, with the sevenfold trumpet- 
blasts before Jericho is very remote !— not a mere sound, which could give 
the signal for the expected horrors, but in consequence of the trumpet-blast, 
the very things themselves to be announced are presented to the gazing 
prophet. This is not acknowledged by those interpreters who have ima- 
gined that while the good angels, whose trumpet-tones through evangelical 
preachers like Hus, Luther, etc., from the time of the apostles until the 
end of the world have not been silenced, call to Christ, a conflict is raised by. 
Satan, who cast (ver. 7) hail and fire (1.6... erroneous doctrine) upon the 
earth, so that the trees (i.e., the teachers of godliness) and the grass (i.e., 
ordinary Christians) are injured.2— Other distorted explanations, as the 
opinion of Bengel, that the prayers of the saints (vv. 3 sqq.) and the trum- 
pets of the angels are contemporaneous, and the conjecture of Ebrard, that 
the first six trumpets occur before the sealing of ch. vii.,3 or, —as the sub- 
ject also is changed, — that “the sealing in reference to the first four trum- 
pet-visions is intended to represent only a relation, but in reference to the 
last three, an event,” 4— are decided already by the general remarks on ch. 
vii. and on viii. 1. Arbitrary interpretations of this kind necessarily accom- 
pany the effort to derive the “meaning” of the trumpet-visions from alle- 
gorizing. 

Ver. 7. When the jirst angel sounded the trumpet, “there followed hail 
and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth.” The 
plague is like that of Egypt, Exod. ix. 24 sqq., only that with the hail and 
fire, i.e., masses of fire,® there is no lightning; ® nor is there any thing said 
of a wind, as perhaps the Prester of Plin., Π. N. ii. 49,7 but blood ὃ is to be 
added, with which both the hail and fire are mingled.? The ἐν with αἵματι 
enables us to see the original meaning still more clearly, as, e.g., vi. 8: the 
blood appears as the mass wherein hail and fire are found.!° The expression 
μεμιγμ. ἐν αἷμ. does not give the idea of a “rain of blood.” Entirely distorted, 
however, is the explanation of Eichh.: “While the hail was falling, a 
shower also poured in the midst of flashes of lightning so rapidly follow- 
ing one another, that the shower itself seemed to be red with the reflected 
flames of the lightning.” The plague in this passage differs from that 
described in Exod. ix. 24 sqq., also in the fact that there the devastation 
was wrought by the hail, but here by the fire: κατεκάη. ---- τὸ τριτον τῆς γῆς. 
De Wette properly thinks only of the surface of the earth, with that which 
is upon it. Yet neither the especially prominent trees, the third part of 


1 Vitr., Rinck, Hengstenb., ete. interpretation, since the hail does not appear 
2 Aret., Zeger, etc. mingled with fire in the blood, but only the fire 
3p. 911, 4 p. 81. is combined with the blood. The effect also, 
5 De Wette. which is ascribed only to the fire, corresponds 
ὃ Ebrard. ' well with this.- But fora change of text the 
7 Ew. i. authority of & is insufficient. 

8 Of. John iii. 3. 10 Of, Matt. vii. 2. Winer, p. 363. 


9 The var. μεμιγμένον οὗ & is not a bad 11 Cf. vii. 1, 3. 


CHAP. VIII. 8, 9. 269 


which are consumed, nor the green grass all of which is burned, are to be 
regarded upon only that third part of the earth; but besides the τρίτον τῆς γῆς; 
also (καὶ) the third part of all the trees, and besides (xa?) all the grass (upon 
the whole earth). — To explain what is here beheld by John as in any way 
allegorical, and thus to bring out the assumed “ meaning” of the whole, and 
of its individual features, is an undertaking, which, since it has no founda- 
tion in the text, can lead only to what is arbitrary. Beda, according to 
whom there is described in ver..7 the destruction of the godless in general, 
refers the entire portrayal to “the punishment of hell.” Luther, who begins 
in general with chs. vii. and viii. the prophecy of spiritual tribulations, i.e., 
of heresies, and then progresses to the Papacy, thinks here of Tatian and 
the Encratites. Grotius says, “ The first trumpet explains the cause of the 
rest,” and explains χάλαζα = “the hardening of the hearts of the Jews;” πῦρ 
peu. ἐν αἷμ. = “sanguinary rage.” ‘Civil insurrections”! and wars are sug- 
gested, not only by those who everywhere find the Romano-Judaic disturb- 
ances, but also by Beng.? and Hengstenb.? Vitr. refers to the plague and 
famine in the times of Decius and Gallus.4 Stern explains persecutions of 
the Church by the heathen, erroneous doctrines, and worldly wars in the 
Roman Empire. Ebrard understands the spiritual famine as it occurs in 
such Catholic lands as have rejected the light of the Reformation. 

Vv. 8,9. Upon the sound of the second trumpet, follows a sign which 
exercises its injurious effects upon the sea, together with creatures living 
therein and on ships. — ὡς ὄρος -- θάλασσαν. Ebrard’s view, that a volcano was 
torn away from its station along the seacoast by the force raging within, 
and cast into the sea, conflicts with the ὡς as well as with the idea lying in 
the connection, that the ἐβλήθη (cf. ver. 7) occurred by a special, wonderful, 
Divine working. The meaning of the ὡς was given already by N. de Lyra.7 
By the comparison with a great mountain all on fire, only the dreadful 
greatness of the fiery mass is made manifest, which, if we consider its source 
in general, must be regarded as coming from heaven (cf. v. 7). Hence 
it cannot in any way be said,’ that the form of the representation is taken 
- from that of a voleano. An allusion to Jer. li. 21° is entirely out of place.! 
The effect (ver. 8b, ver. 9) is described after the model of the Egyptian 
plague, Exod. vii. 20 sqq., only that here it is not as there all the water, but, 
in analogy with ver. 7,10 sqq., 12 sqq.,a third that becomes blood, and 
likewise a third of living creatures and ships that is destroyed. — ra ἔχοντα 
ψυχάς. The expression designates all living creatures. The nom. apposi- 
tion to τῶν κτίισμ. τῶν ἐν τ. θαλ. stands like iii. 12, ix. 14, xiv. 20, without con- 
struction. — The allegorizing commentators guess here and there without 
any foundation, because the text throughout contains nothing allegorical. 


1 Wetst., Herd., etc. the plague enkindled among men from the 

2 Wars under Trajan and Hadrian. The sulphurous material of the atmosphere.” 
‘Searth’’ is Asia, as vii.1; but the ‘‘ trees,”’ 5 By which the trees themselves, i.e., bish- 
not as vii. 1, Africa, but eminent Jews. The. ops and priests, were injured. 
“ grass’? designates ordinary Jews. 6 Cf. Hengstenb. 

3 Who interprets the “‘ trees’’ and “‘ grass”’ 7“ A vast glowing globe.” 8 Vitr., Ew. 
just as Beng. 9 δώσω σε ws ὄρος ἐμπεπυρισμένον. 


4 « Globes of fire mixed with hail prefigured 10 Against Vitr. 


270 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Beda! explains the whole: “As the Christian religion grew, the Devil 
swollen with pride, and burning with the fire of his own-fury, was cast into 
the sea of the world.” On τ. ἔχ. py. he remarks: “those alive, but spirit- 
ually dead.” Luther: “ Marcion, the Manichaeans, etc.” Grot. may be con- 
sidered the representative of the expositors who make conjectures in general 
concerning the distresses of the Romano-Judaic war. According to him, 
ὄρος, k.7.4., designates the citadel of Antony, i.e., the soldiers therein who 
threw themselves with madness (καιόμ.) into the city (ἐβλ. εἰς τ. θαλ.), killed 
men (ἀπεθάνε, x.7.4.), and stole what was movable (τ. πλοίων). Also Vitr., 
Beng., Stern, yea, even Hengstenb , understand the whole as referring to the 
devastation of war, while they interpret the details with lack of judgment 
like Grot.,? and only differ from him in that Vitr., etc., find the inroads of 
the Goths into the Roman Empire, and Hengstenb., wars in general, prophe- 
sied. Hengstenb. has the view in general, that, in all the trumpet-visions 
except the last, the same thing is represented, viz., war. According to 
Ebrard, the whole means that “the vulcanic, Titanic energy of covetous or 
pleasure-seeking egoism poisons the intercourse of men, the intellectual as 
well as especially the domestic.” 

Vv. 10,11. The third trumpet brings a poisoning of a third part of the 
rivers and fountains of waters (upon the land), and thereby the death of 
many men. — If, therefore, a certain connection with the second trumpet- 
vision be found in the fact that damage to the other waters follows that done 
to the sea, yet the two visions need in no way be drawn together, not even 
in reference to the so-called fulfilment.4 The nature of the damage of ver. 
10 is entirely different from that of ver. 8; it is also, in ver. 11, intended 
for men. In general, however, the preparatory visitations represented by 
the trumpet —just as by the seal-visions—are so directed that one blow 
follows another until finally the Lord comes. —ézecev ἐκ τ. ovp. ἀστῆρ, K.7.A. 
That the star “itself is abandoned to ruin, and, hence, has been torn from 
its place,” ὅ is a statement entirely out of place. The text marks only the 
ruinous effect which the star is to have; but in connection therewith lies the 
idea, that, just to produce the effect intended by God, the falling of the star 
has been caused by the determinate Divine will.— The words καιόμενοσ ὡς 
λαμπάς make it manifest, that the great star which John saw fall from heaven 
had a luminous flame, but in no way show that “the great star” was any 
meteor, comet, or falling star.6— καὶ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ τρίτον τῶν ποταμῶν, κ.ιτ.2, Τῇ 
any one should ask how this is to happen, the answer may be given with 
Ebrard, that the star in its fall is to be scattered so that its “sparks and 
fragments may fly into the water;” but the question and answer come from 
a consideration not belonging to the text.—6 "Ayw6oc. The mase. form, 
instead of the usual τὸ ἀψίνθιον or ἡ ἄψινθος, is chosen because of its congru- 
ence with ὁ ἀστήρ The name designating 8 the nature of the star declares 


1 Cf. Zeg., ete. 3 Matt. xxiv. 7. 

2 The ““ ships,’’ e.g., are, according to Vitr., 4 Against Ebrard. Cf. on vv. 8, 9. 
small states; according to Hengstenb., cities 5 Ebrard. 
and villages; the ‘‘ fish” are in Hengstenb., 6 Against C. a Lap., Wetst., Ziill., etc. 
just as in Grot., men slain by the raging 7 Ew. 


warriors. 8 Cf. vi. 8. 


CHAP. VIII. 12. 271 


its effect (ἐπικράνθησαν). -τ-- τὸ τρίτον τῶν ὑδάτων. From this combination of the 
previously mentioned ποταμοί and πηγαὶ ὑδάτων, the result is expressly, that 
already in ver. 10 the third of the my. id. is to be thought of, which is clear 
also from the connection with τὸ τρίτον τ. mor. — ἐγένετο --- ἰς ἄψινθον. The 
same thing is indicated by ἐπικράνθησαν. By the falling star “ Wormwood,” the 
waters are made wormwood-water whose poisonous bitterness brings death 
to many men. The consideration that wormwood? is no deadly poison, is 
not at all pertinent, because it is not natural wormwood that is here treated 
of. —é« τ ὐδ. Cf. ix. 18; Winer, p. 844. The cause appears as the source 
from which the effect comes. 

The star falling from heaven (the Church), which makes the waters 
bitter and poisonous, is readily interpreted by allegorical expositors as 
heresy. So Beda: “Heretics falling from the summit of the Church at- 
tempt, with the flame of their wickedness, to taint the fountains of divine 
Scriptures.” More definitely still, N. de Lyra, who had referred the two 
preceding trumpets to Arius and Macedonius: “Pelagius, who preached 
contrary to the sweetness of the Holy Spirit.” Luther: “ Origen, who by 
philosophy and reason imbittered and corrupted the Scriptures, as the high 
schools with us have done until the present.” Vitr., Beng., etc., refer it to 
Arius. Mede understands Romulus Augustulus; Laun., Gregory the Great. 
But to the expositors who find everywhere in the Apoc. the particular facts 
of the history of the Church and the world represented, such matters are not 
subject to the option of an allegorizing interpretation, as they refer all to 
events contemporaneous with John. Thus in the star, Grot. finds the Egyp- 
tian mentioned in Acts xxi. 38; while Herder, whose opinion Bohmer has 
reproduced, finds Eleazar,? “a fiery, audacious young man, the prime origi- 
nator of the spirit of the zealots,” through whom the “animosity ” was first 
aggravated. Hengstenb. also here traces again the war. Stars he regards 
as signifying, in general, sovereigns; “the fire with which the great star 
burns is the fire of wrath, war, and conquest;” the water of the streams is 
“a symbol of prosperity:” the whole designates, therefore, the calamity of 
war. 

Ver. 12. The fourth trumpet brings damage to sun, moon, and stars, 
whereof the third of all is darkened, and thus the light is withdrawn from a 
third of the day and of the night. ἐπλήγη. That a “preternatural striking ” 
is to be thought of,’ which has as its consequence the intended darkening 
(iva oxor.), Wolf already mentions, in opposition to the leaning towards the 
rabbinical way, whereby the darkening itself of sun and moon is represented 
as a“smiting.”4 The miraculous eclipse is in itself, as already according to 
the Ὁ. T. representation,® a foretoken of the coming day of judgment;® the 
limitation of the same, however, to a third of the sun, moon, and stars, and 
consequently to a third of the day and night ruled over by them,’ corresponds 
to similar statements in the preceding trumpet-visions. — καὶ 7 ἡμέρα μὴ φάνῃ, 


1 Cf. Winer, Rwb., in loc. it is a bad sign to the whole world.” In 
2 Jos., B. Jud., ii. 17. Wetst. 
3 Cf. Exod. vii. 25. 5 John iii. 4; Am. viii.9. Cf. Exod. x. 21 


4 Succa, p. 29,1: ‘* When the sun is struck, 8q1- 6 Cf. also vi. 12 sqq. 7 Gen. i. 16. 


AZ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


viz., as the apposition τὸ τρίτον αὐτῆς more explicitly says, the third part of 
the day. And likewise the night. The words cannot mean that the light 
proceeding from the smitten stars has lost the third of its brilliancy, the 
reverse of Isa. xxx. 26;1 still less does the expression bear the explana- 
tion of Ebrard, “that the third of the stars was smitten with respect to time, 
so that they were darkened only for a third of the day, contrasted with night- 
time, while for the other two-thirds they are bright.’’ But the idea is this: 
Since a third of the sun is eclipsed, a third of the day (regarded in its tem- 
poral length) is deprived of its sunlight, and the night likewise of the shin- 
ing of moon and stars. So De Wette, who judges likewise that here the 
' sameness between the third of the stars and the third of day and night “is 
carried out even to what is unnatural.” The exception is correctly taken, 
and therefore expressed without impiety, because the present vision of John 
is to him as little as all the rest an absolutely objective incident, a likeness 
presented him by God as complete;? of course, also, no real fiction,? but a 
view communicated through the prophet’s own subjectivity. 

The allegorical expositors find here * the obscuration, confusion, and 
diminution of beneficial institutions, whether of a spiritual or a political 
kind. Beda proposes the disturbance of the Church by false brethren; N. 
de Lyra, the heresy of Eutyches. The injury done by Islam is understood 
by Stern, who mentions the fact, that instead of the full moon the Church 
has become a half moon (ἐπλήγη --- τὸ τρίτον τ. oeA.), and many stars have van- 
ished, i.e., the sees of many bishops have been overthrown. Wetst.,® 
Herder, etc., propose political confusion; so, too, Vitr., Beng., who, how- 
ever, have in mind the incursions of the Goths and Vandals into the Eastern 
Empire, and Hengstenb., who very generally understands sad times full of 
the calamities of war. Bohmer combines the reference to Jewish temporal 
relations with his interpretation of sun and moon as applying to spiritual 
things, already employed on vi. 12: “ That sun and moon and stars are smit- 
ten with darkness, we explain from the fact that sad prophecies have trans- 
pired, and the law has begun to be neglected. But the end of prophecy 
and the law has not, as yet, actually come, on which account only a third 
thereof is regarded as having been obscured.” 

Concerning the visions coming with the first four trumpets, which are to 
be distinguished from the three immediately following (ver. 13), it is to be 
remarked in general: 1. The plagues described in them, which concern the 
entire sphere of the visible world (the earth, ver. 7; the sea, vv. 8,9; the 
waters of the main land, vv. 10, 11; the stars, day and night, ver. 12; cf. 
Beng., Ew., etc.), are perceptible not only to unbelievers, but also ‘to be- 
lievers.© This necessarily lies in the very nature of the plagues; and the 
sealing correctly understood (vii. 2 sqq.) in no way gives any other idea.’ 
2. The allegorical explanation, and the reference founded thereon to events 


1 Beng., Ziill., Bohmer, Klief. 5 «« There was pure ἀναρχία, the magistrates 

2 Against the inspiration theory of Heng- were despised, all Judaea conspired for sedi- 
stenb., etc. tion.’’ 

3 Against Eichh., Ew., De Wette, etc. 6 Against De Wette, etc. 


4 Cf. vi. 12 sqq. 7 Cf., on the other hand, ix. 4. 


CHAP. VIII. 13. 275 


or circumstances of ecclesiastical or civil history, —of which Ebrard empha- 
sizes the latter,} has no foundation whatever in the text, and, therefore, leads 
necessarily to arbitrary suppositions. But the context, according to which 
the trumpet-visions proceed from the seventh seal, shows that this vision, in 
its eschatological significance, has reference to the end to be expected already 
after the sixth 2 and in the seventh seal; viz., the actual coming of the Lord, 
in connection with which the plagues described by the first six seals are to 
be regarded as premonitory signs of the impending end of the same charac- 
ter as those described in the fundamental prophecy of Matt. xxiv. 29. The 
same relation as subsists there between ver. 29 and vv. 6, 7, recurs in the 
signs portrayed in the four trumpet-visions and those described in the seal- 
visions. It is true that the sixth seal already has introduced foretokens of 
the nature of Matt. xxiv. 29, and this is developed in close connection until 
the description of the last end; but by the fact that in vii. 1, between the 
sixth and seventh seais, the four angels come forth who are to bring a new 
plague, the final development is further postponed. And if now the final 
catastrophe actually proceeds from the seventh seal,—as is to be expected 
after vi. 17,— yet this occurs only after a further development, which, as 
first of all in the first four trumpet-visions, brings with it new foretokens 
of the coming end. The introductory significance of this sign is expressed in 
the fact that only a third of the earth is concerned; thus a new course is 
designated after the points marked by the already strong signs of the sixth 
seal. Yet that a progress occurs, and that the trumpet-visions do not, in 
any way, again prevail before the sixth seal, the context indicates by the 
fact that the plagues befalling a third of the earth mark an advance when 
compared with the plagues of the fourth seal (vi. 8). 

Ver. 13. An eagle flying in the zenith proclaims, by a threefold annun- 
ciation of woe, the three trumpets still remaining.2— eidov καὶ ἤκουσα. Cf. 
v. 11, vi. 1. -- ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ. Concerning the indefinite meaning of the eic,* cf. 
Winer, p. 111. An eagle is mentioned, not an angel in the form of an 
eagle.5 That it is an eagle which appears as the harbinger of the still 
impending woe, has its foundation, not in the “prophecy” of Christ, Matt. 
xxiv. 28, —for that passage contains no prophecy at all, but a proverbial 
assertion of the moral law upon which the threatening prophecies of. the 
Lord depend, —nor is it to be regarded as an antithesis to the dove, John i. 
32;® nor does the eagle come into consideration as a bird of omen,’ for, 
apart even from the unchristian character of the idea, the evil omen does 
not lie in the eagle as such. But it is in the same way appropriate that the 
far-sounding, menacing cry of the mighty, dreadful eagle be raised, in which 
the irruption of devastating enemies is compared with the flight of the 
eagle to its plunder.* — πετομένου ἐν μεσουρανήματι. Cf. xiv. 6, xix. 17. Mecov- 


1 Cf. also Hengstenb. 6 Hengstenb.: ‘‘ The eagle is sent to those 
2 vi. 12 sqq. who do not want the dove to descend upon 
3. Of. ix: 12; xiv 34. them.” 

4 xix. 17, 7 Ewald. 

5 Eich., Ew., Stern, De Wette, Bleek, etc. 8 Deut. xxviii. 29; Hos. viii. 1; Hab. i. 8. 


Cf. Critical Notes. Cf. Hengstenb. 


274 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


paveiv designates the sun’s position in its meridian altitude; hence μεσουράνημα 
is first of all the astronomical relation which is occasioned by the sun’s 
standing in the zenith.1 According to this, the expression may designate 
the μέσον οὔρανον 2 as the place for the μεσουρανεῖν of the sun, but not the space 
between the vault of heaven and the earth. The eagle flies to the meridian 
altitude of heaven, because the idea is thus given, that it can be seen and 
heard of all to whom its message pertains. — τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, AS Vi. 
10. —ék τ. Aut. wv. The ἐκ, for the same reason as ver. 11.4 — τῆς σάλπιγγος. 
The sing. is not distributive,> but by its close connection with τῶν φωνῶν 
shows itself to be one conception. 

Who or what the eagle properly is, cannot be properly decided here, as 
in Matt. xxiv. 28. Yet even here allegorical explanations are found. Beda: 
“ The voice of this eagle daily penetrates the Church through the mouths of 
eminent teachers.” C. a Lap.:® “Some prophet or other to be expected at 
the end of the world.” According to Joachim, the eagle is Gregory the 
Great; according to N. de Lyra, John himself; according to Zeger, the 
Apostle Paul. Herder, etc., also Bohmer and Volkm., propose the eagle of 
the Roman legions. 


1 Eustathius, on J/., ix. 68: αἴξησις ἡμέρας 3 Ew. i. 
λέγεται --- τὸ ἀπὸ πρωΐας μέχρις ἡλιακοῦ μεσου- 4 Cf. Matt. xviii. 7: azo. 
ρανήματος. In Wetst. 5 Beng. 


2 De Wette. σ Cf. Rib. 


CHAP, IX. 275 


CHAPTER IX. 


Ver. 2. καὶ ἤνοιξεν τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ἀβύσσου. So, correctly, Elz., Beng., Griesb., 
Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], according to the best witnesses. The words lacking 
in &, 6, 8, 9, al., Copt., al., are rejected by Mill (Prolegg., 1434) and Matth. 
But the omission in the codd. is easily explained by the similar conclusion of 
ver. 1; just as in ver. 2, because of καπνὸς occurring twice, the words καπν, ἐκ τ. 
op. ὡς are omitted by some witnesses. Cf. Wetst. In an exegetical respect, the 
words κ. ἤνοιξεν τ. op. τ. G3. are scarcely needed. — Ver. 4. αὑτῶν, Elz.: αὐτῶν 
(Tisch.). Apparently interpolated; deleted by Lach. [W. and H.] (A, &, 12, 
28). — Ver. 5. βασανισθήσονται. So Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], according to A, 
δὲ, 12. The reading βασανισθῶσι (Elz.) arose, like the other variations, from the 
desire for conformity; cf. the preceding ἀποκτείνωσιν. ---- Ver. 6. Instead of 
εὑρήσουσιν (X, Elz.), [W. and H.] read εὕρωσιν (A, 12, 17, 28, Beng., Lach., 
Tisch. ), to which also the var. εὑρήσωσιν (2, 9, 11, al., Wetst.) points. —The fut. 
φεύξεται (Elz.) is an emendation, instead of the well-attested pres. φεύγει (Lach., 
Tisch. [W. and H.]). δὲ: ¢0y7.— Ver. 10. καὶ κέντρα ἣν ἐν ταὶς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἡ 
ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἀδικῆσαι. Thus Elz., but without attestation. In the beginning, 
it is undoubtedly to be read only «ai κέντρα (A, 8, 17, al., Matth., Lach., Tisch.). 
In favor of the succeeding words, the reading of A, δὰ, 17, manifestly the mater 
lectionis, is decisive: καὶ ἐν ταὶς obpaic aitav 7 ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἀδικῆσαι, K.t.A, (Lach., 
Tisch.). In the other text-recensions, the emendizing hand is unmistakable, 
especially so in that received by Matth., and represented by a respectably large 
number of witnesses: «. ἐν τ᾿ oip. ait. ἔχουσιν ἐξουσ. τοῦ ἀδικ. Upon the founda- 
tions of inner criticism, next to the correct reading, that of the edition of Beng. 
commends itself: καὶ κέντρα ἐν τ. ουρ. αὐτὼν ἡ ἐξουσ. αὐτὼν ἀδικ., K.T.2. — Ver. 12. 
Instead οὗ ἔρχονται (Elz.), Matth. has written, in accord with preponderant 
testimony (δ): ἔρχεται (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).— Ver. 13. τεσσάρων is 
lacking in A, 28, Syr.; Aeth., Ar., Vulg., Beda, is deleted by Lach. [W. and 
H.], and rejected also by Ebrard; Tisch. has again adopted it. Possibly it fell 
out because of its similarity with κεράτων (Beng.); but it was more probably 
interpolated in order to make an antithesis to the φ. μίαν, and a parallelism with 
the τ. τέσσαρας dyy. (ver. 14). — Ver. 14. ὁ ἔχων. So, already, Beng. The 
emendation ὅς εἶχε (Elz.) is destitute of all critical value. — Ver. 16. τοῦ ἕππον,. 
So Matth., Tisch., 1854, according to 2,4, 8, al. The reading τοῦ ἱππικοῦ (x, Elz., 
Beng., Tisch., 1859, IX. [W. and H.]), like the var. τῶν ἵππων, appears to be 
a correction. — δισμυριάδες. A, 11, 12, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Also the var. 
δισμυρίων (18, Wetst.) points to the true reading. The δύο μυριάδες (δὲ, Elz., 
Beng.) is, like the mere μυριάδες in Matth., a correction. — The καὶ before ἤκουσα 
(Elz.) is certainly to be deleted (Beng., Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). 
— Ver. 20. οὐ μετενύησαν. This only intelligible reading is sufficiently attested 
by C, 4, 6, 16, al., Copt., Andr., Areth., and is properly preferred by Griesb., 
Matth., Tisch. [W. and H.], to the οὔτε (Vulg., Primas, Cypr., Elz., Beng,. 
Lach.). δὲ: οὐδὲ, 


276 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Vy. 1-12. The trumpet of the fifth angel brings the jirst woe,! viz., 
locusts from hell as a plague upon men not sealed (ver. 4; cf. vii. 1 sqq.). 

Ver. 1. ἀστέρα ἐκ τ. ovp. πεπτωκότα εἰς τ. y. Eichh. is incorrect in explain- 
ing the part. pf. as in form and meaning equivalent to καταβαίνειν. The star 
had already fallen from heaven to earth, and had become just as John saw 
it; the falling, also, is in no way a spontaneous descent, — possibly at God’s 
command for a definite purpose,?— but the expression presupposes that the 
star was thrown down.® But the “star” is neither to be regarded as changed 
into a human form,‘ nor to be understood as a purely figurative designation of 
an angel,® but the idea of a star mingles with that of an angel, as in the O. T. 
view of the D'DWiI N2¥.6 The star fallen from heaven appears, consequently, 
not as a good,’ but as a bad, angel,® who must serve only to bring a plague of 
an infernal character upon the godless: καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ, κιτιΔ. This ἐδόθη would, 
of course, have its justification if the star were a heavenly servant; but in 
connection with the πεπτωκότα, the idea is significant that this infernal angel 
was expressly appointed a place in order to bring in the plagues inflicted 
by God otherwise than in xx. 1, where the angel “coming down” from 
heaven has in his hand the key of the abyss.9 —# κλεὶς τοῦ φρέατος τῆς ἀβύσσου. 
The ἄβυσσος (viz., xepa), i.e., bottomless, the abyss, designates —like the 
Heb. DNA, which the LXX. often render by ἄβυσσος 19 --- the depths of the 
earth in the natural sense,!! then Sheol, Hades, i.e., the place of abode of 
the departed in those depths,!? but in the Apoc.,}8 and Luke viii. 31, the 
present }4 abode of the Devil and his angels. From this ἄβυσσος, a φρέαρ (LXX. 
for W823, “well,” Gen. xxi. 30, xxvi. 15; ef. John iv. 11), regarded as pro- 
ceeding and discharging over the surface of the earth, appears like a shaft 15 
of some kind, possibly after the manner of wells or cisterns, to be closed; 
and hence the angel receives a key, in order, by descending into the deep, to 
open the shaft of the well, and thus to let out the smoke proceeding from 
the ἄβυσσος (ver. 2). [See Note LVL. p. 292.] 

Vv. 2,3. The smoke arising from the opened well, comparable to the 
smoke of a great furnace,!® was so thick that thereby (ἐν τ, xazv., ef. viii. 11) 
the sun and moon were obscured. —6 ἥλιος καὶ 6 agp is not an hendiadys,?” 
but, according to the more natural view, it is apparent that both, viz., the 
sun and the air, are darkened by the thick mass of smoke. — καὶ ἐκ τ, καπν. 
ἐξῆλθον ἀκρίδες εἰς τι y. The καπνός, therefore, was not merely an apparent 
mass of smoke, yet in fact a dreadful swarm of locusts;}* but the infernal 


1 Cf. viii. 13. 2. ΘΕ Χ ΣΟ: 9 Against Ew., etc. 

3 vi. 13. Cf. Luke x. 18; Isa. xiv. 12. 10 Also in the plural; Ps. ]xxi. 21, cvii. 26. 

4 Vitr. Cf. Hengstenb. 11 Gen. i. 2, vii. 11; Deut. viii. 7. 

5 «* An angel imitating a star in bright light 12 Pg, Ixxi. 21, evii. 26; Rom. x. 7. 
and splendor.” 13 yer. 11, xx.1,3. Cf. xi. 7, xvii. 8. 

6 Cf. Ps. ciii. 21; Jer, xxxiii.22; Job xxxviii. 14 Cf., on the other hand, Rev. xx. 10. 
7. Ewald, who compares xviii. 16, xxi. 1-6, in 15 The idea is otherwise in Ps. lv. 24, accord- 
addition to Enoch, 84 sqq., Ixxxix. 32. ing to the Heb., as well as the LXX. 

7 Beng., De Wette. 16 Cf. Gen. xix. 28; Exod. xix. 18. 

8 Beda, who, however, like many of the old 17 ‘* The air, so far as illumined by the sun” 


interpreters, understands it directly of the (Beng.). 
Devil; Volkm. 18 Vitr., Eichh., Ziill., Ebrard. 


CHAP. IX. 4, 5. pat a § 


smoke is the covering under which the miraculous locusts ascend, and from 
which they “‘come out,” in order to execute the plagues with which they are 
commissioned.! Against the force of the words, Klief. explains: “The ma- 
terial for the locusts already existed on earth, but the smoke ascending from 
hell converts it, into locusts.” — καὶ ἐδόθη — οἱ σκορπίοι τῆς γῆς. The power given 
(cf. ver. 5) these locusts corresponds with their form and equipment (ver. 10). 
The τῆς γῆς with οἱ σκορπίοι does not refer to the distinction, which is here 
entirely out of place, between land- ‘and sea-beasts,? but to the fact that the 
locusts are not from the earth; the infernal locusts receive a power like 
that of earthly scorpions. Hence no allusion should be made® to the state- 
ment of Jewish writings, that hell is full of scorpions. 

Vv. 4,5. There is here a further description as to how this plague of 
the locusts, proceeding from the abyss, is entirely different from that which 
the ordinary earthly locusts bring. —xai ἐῤῥεθη ait., «.7.4., ef. vi. 11. The 
ready recollection of the Egyptian plague of locusts * makes the plague here 
appointed appear the more wonderful and dreadful. Not the grass and all 
the fresh verdure of field and trees, which are elsewhere devoured by locusts, 
are-now regarded,®> but only® men, those, viz., διτινες οὐκ ἔχουσι τὴν σφραγῖδα, 
κιτιλ. Only as those without the seal,’ are they subjected to the plague pro- 
ceeding from the abyss. The allegorizing interpretation of Beda and many 
others, according to which the rage of heretics (locusts) against the ortho- 
dox is regarded as here represented, miscarries —even though in its indi- 
vidual features it is refuted —chiefly in that, according to this exposition, 
the godly (the sealed) must appear as they who suffer. The explanation 
also which refers the entire trumpet-vision to the Jewish war, and under- 
stands by the locusts the Zealots, is also embarrassed on this point, so that 
Heinr. must remark: “ We are unwilling to inquire here whether the Zealots 
were really grievous and pestilential to the better or the worse part of the 
race. The poet certainly imagines the latter.’” —The injury which, in ver. 
4, the locusts were commanded to inflict upon men, is more precisely defined 
in ver. 5; viz., that they are to torment men with the scorpionic power given 
them, but are not to inflict death. — ἐδόθη air. iva, x.7.A. Cf. ver. 3. That 
the not killing is to be strictly taken, but that it is not to be said that “only 
the not killed draw attention to themselves, because their number is the 
greater, and their lot the harder,”® is shown by the tenor of the words, 
the antithesis ἀλλ᾽ iva βασανισθῆσονται, aud the further description, ver. 6. — 
βασανισθῆσονται. It harmonizes well with the change of subject, that the 
indic. fut. now follows iva. Cf. a similar change of inf. and indic. fut., 
vi. 4. -- μῆνας πέντε. The allegorizing explanations depend, as always, upon 
extreme arbitrariness. Beda: “That heretics temporarily attack the good. 
For by five months it signifies the time of a generation, on account of the 
five senses which we use in this life.” Others reckon five mystical months, 
as 5 x 30, i.e., 150 mystical days; i.e., ordinary years, which time is re- 


1 Cf. Ewald, De Wette, etc. 4 Exod. x. 12-15. Cf. also Joel i. 2. 


2 Against Ew. i., without reference to Ew. 5 Cf. also viii. 7. 
ii.: ““ known to men.” 6 ci μή. Cf. Matt. xii. 4; Gal. i. 19, ii. 16. 


3 Ew. ii. 7 Cf. vii. 1 sqq. 8 Hengstenb. 


278 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


ferred by Vitr. to the dominion of the Goths, and by Calov. to the duration 
of Arianism. Bengel fixes five prophetic months as equal to 794 years, and 
proposes the sufferings of the Jews in Persia during the sixth century, which 
were of that length. Utterly out of place is the reference to Gen. vii. 24;1 or 
that to the five sins, ver. 20 sqq.,? for even if the number of sins were marked 
there in any way as five, it would nevertheless be preposterous if an entirely 
special feature of one vision found its significance not within this itself, but 
only in another. Yet the five months are not to be passed by as “ mystical ” 
without an explanation, as if this must be actually given only by its fulfil- 
ment.? Besides, Hengstenb. says, arbitrarily, the number five “is absolutely 
the sign of the half, unfinished, as the broken number. Five months are 
mentioned, because only the five, in its relation to the twelve months of the 
year, gives the idea of relatively long duration and dreadfulness;” against 
which Ebrard already replies that to this sense the number six, the half of 
the twelve months, would most simply correspond. LEichh., Ew., De Wette,* 
have properly recognized the designation of the five months as a feature in 
the vision, which is derived from the popular idea that the locusts usually 
appeared during the five months from May.® As generally the entire deserip- 
tion of visionary locusts, however supernatural they appear, depends upon 
the basis of a natural view, so, also, that natural conception lies at the foun- 
dation of the period given; yet even in this point the natural relation is 
heightened, as the locusts remain out of the abyss for fully five months, 
while, naturally, it is only within this time that occasionally a swarm of 
locusts may come. — ὁ βασανισμὸς αὐτῶν. The αὐτῶν is the gen. subj., as in 
the corresponding ὡς Bacav. σκορπίου. The subj. again is the ἀκρίδες, and βασα- 
νισμός has an active sense, as the form corresponds.* — ὅταν παίσῃ ἀνθρ., when 
he shall have struck a man.?' The correct Greek mode of expression regards 
a. case naturally possible as having already occurred. Significant is the | 
expression παΐειν, which in the LXX., besides πατάσσέιν,8 corresponds to the 
Heb. 15n.9 The Latins also speak forcibly of the scorpion’s stroke.!° 

Ver. 6. ἐν τ. ἡμέραις ἐκείναις. Viz., when what has been previously seen by 
John in the vision actually occurs. Just upon the fact that the vision repre- 
sents prophetically what is to occur,!! depends the express prophetic mode of 
expression in the fut. ζητήσουσιν, together with the formula ἐν τ, ju. éxeivarc.}* 
Not only is the wish described that the wounds inflicted by the locusts 
might be mortal,!® but, in general, the despairing desire to see an end made 
to life, and thus to escape 4 the dreadful tortures,15—a terrible counterpart 
to the ἐπιθυμία of the apostle springing from the holiest hope.1é 

Vv. 7-10. Only now, after John has described how he has seen the 
miraculous locusts rise from the abyss, and what plagues they are to bring, 


1 Ziill. 9 Num. xxii. 28; 2 Sam. xiv. 6. 
2 Hofmann. 10 Plin., H. W., vi. 28. 

8 Ebrard. 11 Cf. iv. 1, v. 1 sqq. 

4 Cf. already Calov., Vitr., etc. 12 Cf. Ewald, De Wette. 

5 Cf. Bochart. Jieroz. ii. 495. 13 De Wette. 

6 De Wette. 14 Cf. Jer. viii. 3. 

7 Cf. Winer, p. 289. 15 Ver. 5. 


8 Jon. iv. 7. 16 Phil. i. 23. 


CHAP. IX. 7-10. 279 


does he proceed to describe the extraordinary phenomenon more minutely 
and fully. An essential feature in this description, ver. 10, has express ref- 
erence to what is said in vv. 3-5: in other respects the individual points of 
the description are not to be urged, as the context itself not only does not 
suggest a special interpretation, which must prove allegorical, but rather 
excludes it; e.g., there is no question as to something special according to 
ver. 3 sqq., either as to the teeth of lions, or the hair of women. The infer- 
nal locusts are to torment men only after the manner of scorpions (ver. 10); 
of a biting, as with the teeth of lions, nothing whatever is said. But if 
individual features be pressed in violation of the context, manifest prepos- 
terous interpretations follow; as, e.g., the reference of the teeth of lions to 
the erroneous doctrines and calumniations with which heretics have lacerated 
the orthodox church.!_ That which is aimed at is the general impression in 
a description, in which the actual form of natural locusts lies, in a certain 
way, at the foundation. These infernal locusts, however dreadful their 
supernatural form, are nevertheless always to be known as locusts; only in 
what is described in ver. 10, they have a wonderful peculiarity of their form 
corresponding to the plagues committed to them (ver. 3 sqq.), which is with- 
out all natural analogy. — τὰ ὁμοιώματα τῶν axp. Incorrectly, Hengstenb. and 
Ew. ii.: their likeness. ὁμοίωμα designates regularly? the product of an 
ὁμοιοῦν, ie , the form so far as it is just like a model. The forms of the 
locusts were like ἔπποις ἡτοιμ. εἰς πόλ. This pertains to the forms as a whole. 
Cf. Joel ii. 4. In books of travel, it is expressly noted, that the form of the 
locust has a certain resemblance to that of a horse. The similarity is espe- 
cially manifest if we think of the horse as equipped (ἡτοιμασμ. εἰς πολ.), SO 
that its head rises from the breastplate like the head of the locust from its 
thorax (ver. 9). — ἐπὲ τ. ep. abt. ὡς στέφανοι ὅμοιοι ypvod. From the fact that 
the natural locust has nothing on its head that looks like a crown, it does 
not follow that the oreddva du. xp. are nothing else than the polished helmets 
of soldiers, who are to be understood under the allegory of locusts.® Στέφ. 
does not mean helmets; and even if there were some ground, in general, for 
such allegory, yet, at all events, the individual features of the allegory as 
such could first be harmoniously comprehended, and afterwards be obtained 
in their individual points. But any mingling of (assumed) allegory and 
literal statement is to be rejected ; and hence the exposition is entirely inad- 
missible which ascribes helmets, meant literally, to locusts, meant allegori- 
cally. The same fundamental principle applies to the other features of the 
description; so that, e.g., the hair, like the hair of women, ascribed to the 
locusts, could not be the long hair of barbarian warriors. — The supposition 
is readily suggested, that also the words x. ἐπι τὰς κεφ., «.7.2., contain an allu- 
sion to the natural form of the locust. But even if John says that upon the 
heads of the locusts there was something ‘“‘like gold-like crowns” (ὡς στ. 
ὅμοιοι yp., cf. iv. 6), he could scarcely have thought of the two antennae about 


Calov., etc. 2 Cf. Winer, p. 89. 4 Cf. Winer, Rb., i. 575. 
3 Cf. Ezek. i. 16, x. 21, where the Heb. 5 Eichh., Heinr. 
ΓΗ stands; Rom. i. 23; Phil. ii. 7. 6 Against Vitr., etc. 


280 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


an inch long;! it is more probable,? that the rather strong, jagged elevation, 
which of course is situated, not on the head, but in the middle of the tho- 
rax,’ but which in the popular view, not readily distinguishing the line of 
division between head and thorax, may appear as if upon the head of the 
insect, serves as the natural type. The yellowish-green brilliant coloring of 
that elevation of the thorax may then have given John the natural oppor- 
tunity for describing that which is crown-like on the heads of the demoni- 
acal locusts as ὅμ. χρυσῷ. ---- τὰ πρόσωπα abt. ὡς πρόσωπα ἀνθρώπων. The expressly 
marked comparison dare be denied here as little as the other features of the 
description. Hengstenb , therefore, is incorrect when, like the older alle- 
gorists, not only mistaking the simple comparison for an (imaginary) alle- 
gory, but also confounding the literal with an allegorical interpretation, he 
says, “ Their faces were like the faces of men, since a fearful look, the 
dreadful look of men, shines through the look of locusts. In fact, they were 
actually faces of men.” The text nowhere says this, but gives an idea of 
the faces of the demoniacal locusts by representing them as like the faces 
of men. This also has its natural foundation in the fact, that the head of 
the locust has actually a faint resemblance to the human profile. The 
more strongly this similarity is regarded, as expressed in the supernatural 
locusts whose entire form has in it something monstrous, the more dreadful 
must it appear. — καὶ εἶχον τρίχας ὡς τρίχας γυναικῶν. ‘This feature of the de- 
scription also is to be apprehended in the same way as the preceding. The 
words ὡς τρίχ. yuv. are intended only relatively; the point of comparison, 
however, can lie only in the length of the hair, since long hair is peculiar to 
women, not to men.® In the description which is intended only to make 
visible the fact that the miraculous locusts have long hair like that of 
women, there is no special allegorical reference, either to the long hair as it 
is found in barbarian warriors,® or to the fact that “the spirits of darkness,” 
or men serving as their instruments, “look so mildly and tenderly from be- 
neath the tresses of women,” while back of these locks they conceal the 
teeth of lions.?. Every thing upon which such allegorical interpretation must 
lay importance has been improperly introduced. It may appear doubtful 
whether John, in representing the wonderfully long hair of the supernatu- 
ral locusts, thinks of it according to the analogy of the antennae of the 

natural locusts, — as is most simple, — or whether he understands the hair in | 
the other parts of the body, e.g., the legs;® but it is certain, that if the 
context is otherwise to be regarded as harmonious and free from perplexity, 
every other reference, except that indicated by the simple comparison, is to 
be regarded out of place. —xk. of οδόντες abt. ὡς λεόντων ἧσαν. Joel already 
(i. 6) ascribes the teeth of lions to natural locusts. There, as here, nothing 
else is illustrated but the desolating voraciousness, but not “the rage of the 
enemy.”® This feature is highly significant in order to answer to the figure 


1 Ewald. 6 As even De Wette tries to establish, al- 
2 Cf. Ziill., De Wette. though properly rejecting the interpretation of 
3 Cf. Winer in loc. the locusts as warriors. 

4 Cf. Ziill., Ew., De Wette. 7 Ebrard. 


5 Cf. 1 Cor. xi. 14 sq. Winer, Rwb., i. 527. 8 Ewald. 9 Hengstenb. 


CHAP. IX. 11. 281 


of locusts as such, but, like what is said in ver. 7, is entirely irrelevant in 
reference to the particular plague which is to be brought by the infernal 
locusts (ver. 3 sqq.).—-x«. ex. θώρακας ὡς θῶρ. σιδηροῦς. Incorrectly, Heng- 
stenb. : “The iron cuirasses show how difficult it is to approach these 
horsemen.” Instead of the breastplate of natural locusts, to which natural 
history has given the significant name thoraz,} the supernatural locusts have 
a cuirass compared only with a coat of mail. —«,. ἡ φωνὴ τ. πτερύγων, x.7.A. 
Like natural, these~demoniacal locusts also have wings, whose rushing is 
very naturally? illustrated by the comparison, ὡς φωνὴ ἁρμάτων ἵππων πολλῶν 
τρεχόντων εἰς πόλεμον. In these words neither the ἁρμάτων ὃ nor the ἵππων 4 is to 
be regarded as interpolated, since the idea “ as the sound of chariots of many 
horses running to war,” is as readily understood as it is throughout suitable. 
Yet it dare not be said, that, while the rattling of the wagons corresponds 
to the whizzing of the locusts, the horses are specially mentioned, “ because 
the mass of riders, and not of wagons, are the proper antitype of the 
locusts.” 5 Already the expression, in which the ἁρμάτων belongs to ἵππων 
πολλ. as its subjective genitive, forbids the distinction made in the interests 
of a perverted (allegorizing) collective view. The entire noise, which is 
caused as well by the chariot-wheels, as also by the hoofs of the horses 
driven in the chariots, is designated, since it is designedly that not the 
chariots alone are mentioned. — xk. ἔχουσιν οὐράς ὁμοίας σκορπίοις καὶ κέντρα. The 
Comparatio compendiaria ® states that tails of the locusts are like the tails of 
scorpions; in connection with which, the particular (καὶ κέντρα) is expressly 
marked, that is the special subject of consideration. Beng., Hengstenb.,? 
are not willing, however, to acknowledge any breviloquence, but regard the 
locusts’ tails as the (entire) scorpions, and appeal to ver. 19. But in the lat- 
ter passage, where the subject refers to heads and mouths situated in the 
serpent-like tails of the horses, not only the context in general, but also 
the special determination ἔχουσ. κεφάλας, forbids us finding in the words 
ὁμ. ὄφεσιν ἃ Comparatio compendiaria; while, in ver. 10, the intention and 
expression lead to this most simple mode of statement. — x. ἐν τ. οὐραῖς air. 
ἡ ἐξουσία ait. ἀδικῆσαι, x.7.A, The inf. ἀδικ. explains the power in the tails fur- 
nished with scorpion-like stings. It is worthy of observation, how this last 
feature again reverts to the description of the same plagues as are com- 
manded in ver. 3 sqq.;% and thus the whole appears to be harmoniously 
rounded off. Also the designation μῆνας πέντε is repeated from ver. 5, in 
order once more to emphatically mention that the infernal beasts, with their 
scorpion-like equipment and power, are to plague men after the manner of 
locusts during five full months. [See Note LVII., p. 292.] 

Ver. 11. As in their form and entire nature, the demoniacal locusts are 
distinguished from those which are natural,!® also in that they have a king, 
Viz., τὸν ἄγγελον τῆς ἀβύσσου, i.e., not “an angel from the abyss,’ but the 


1 De Wette. 6 Cf. xiii. 11; Matt. v. 20. 

2 Cf. Joel ii. 5. Winer, Rwb., in loc. 7 Cf. also Winer, p. 579; De Wette. 
3 De Wette. 8 Cf. vi. 8. 

4 Ew.i. 9 Ewald, Hengstenb. 


5 Hengstenb. 10 Proy. xxx. 27. 11 Luth. 


282 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


angel of the abyss, by which, however, not Satan himself is to be under- 
stood ;} since this is indicated neither by the designation, τ. ἄγγ. τ. ἀβ., nor 
the definite appellation. Still less is the “king” to be identified with the 
‘¢star,” ver. 1, as Hengstenb.? must do, because he assumes that as often as 
a star is mentioned in the Apoc. a ruler is meant, and therefore says here, 
“If what is said here were concerning another king, the locusts would have 
two kings.” The expression τὸν dyy. τ. 43.3 makes us think only of such an 
angel as is in a special way the overseer of the abyss. One thing, pertain- 
ing to this position of his, is here mentioned, viz., that he is the king of the 
locusts rising from the abyss. As the overseer of the abyss, however, he is 
not only designated its angel, but bears also the very name which in its Heb. 
form expressly indicates that relation: ὄνομα αὑτῳ 'EBpaioti ᾿Αβαδδὼν καὶ ἐν τῇ 
Ἑλληνικὴ ὄνομα ἔχει ᾿Απολλύων. Already in the O. T., ΤΊΣ (LXX.: ἀπώλεια), 
parallel with TINY, designates the kingdom of corruption in a local respect; 
with the rabbins, Abaddon is the lowest space of hell.6 Accordingly the 
ἄβυσσος itself receives the name ’AG.; but very appropriately the angel of 
the abyss here bears it, who as overseer is in a certain respect its personal 
representative. The Greek interpretation ᾿Απολλύων is given in this form — 
not as possibly ὀλοθρευτής, etc., not to give a sound corresponding with the 
name Apollo,” but because in the LXX. the personal name is naturally con- 
nected with the expression ἀπώλεια. An express contrast between Apollyon 
the Destroyer, and Jesus the Saviour, can be found only by those who& 
understand the former as Satan himself. [See Note LVIII., p. 292.] 

Ver. 12. These words,® serving as well to conclude vv. 1-11 (ἡ οὐαὶ ἡ 
pia ἀπῆλθεν), as to point to what follows (ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται, «.7.A.) belong to John’s 
report, and are not to be taken as the words of the eagle,! or any other 
heavenly messenger. After the vision just described, John makes promi- 
nent that now the one woe of the threefold cry is fulfilled, and accordingly 
past. — ἡ μία, cardinal number, that one of the three, as immediately after- 
wards ἔτι dio. Cf. vi. 1. — ἡ οὐαὶ. The striking feminine form is explained 
by the fact that the conception of a θλῖψς is involuntarily substituted for this 
announced woe.!! — ἰδοὺ, ἔρχεται ἔτι δύο οὐαὶ μ. τ. The sing. ἔρχεται contains an 
hypallage, which is inoffensive since the verb precedes.}? 

The allegorical mode of interpretation applies to ver. 1 sqq., as every- 
‘where, the most arbitrary expedients, and does the greatest violence to the 
context, and that, too, alike in the expositors who make their explanations 
from an overstrained conception of biblical prophecy, no less than in those 
who in a more or less rationalistic way consider the prophetic visions of 
John as vaticinia post eventum, and transform them into allegorical outlines 
of the events of the Romano-Judaic war. The plague of locusts is regarded 
as heresy only by interpreters of the first class;1% as calamities of war, and 


1 Ebrard. Cf. Grot., Calov., etc. 8 Beng., Hengstenb. 
2 Also Volkmar. 3 Cf. xvi. 5. 9 Cf. xi. 14. 10 Of, viii. 18. 
4 Beng., Ew., De Wette. 11 Cf. Winer, p. 169. 
5 Cf. Job xxvi. 6, xxviii. 22; and, besides, 12 Cf. Winer, p. 481. 
Hirzel-Olshaus. 13 Beda, Andr., Areth., N. de Lyra, Luth., 


6 Cf. Schottg. 7 Grot. Calov., Boss., Stern, etc. 


CHAP. IX. 12. 283 


similar afflictions, by interpreters of both classes.1 N. de Lyra, like many 
others proposing the Arians, interprets the individual chief features thus: 
the star, ver. 1, is the Emperor Valens, “who from the height of Catholic 
faith fell into the Arian heresy;” the key is the power of exalting this 
heresy; the locusts are the Vandals whom this heresy infected; the verdure, 
ver. 4, represents the Christians in Africa spared by the Vandals; the five 
months designate the period of the five Vandal rulers. Stern understands 
by the locusts all imaginable heretics, down even to the Pantheists and Ger- 
man Catholics of our times. The scorpion-tails indicate that “false doctrine 
bears its sting in its consequences;” the hair of women admonishes that 
-“many false doctrines, occasioned by inordinate love to women, have almost 
all been diffused by women, to begin with Helena the associate of Simon 
Magus, down to the bacchantes of modern times, who, with Ronge and 
his followers, drank the cup of the Devil, and won admirers for the prophet 
of Laurahiitte.” 

Many older Protestants understand by the star the Pope; by the locusts 
the degenerate clergy, viz., the monks of the Catholic Church.? This was, 
as C. a Lap. says, a retaliation for the interpretation of Bellarmin and other 
Catholics, that it refers to Luther, Calvin, and the Evangelical Church. — 
If by the locusts warriors are understood (and even Klief. forces from the 
passage the ideas of military power and its oppression), expositors like Grot., 
Wetst., Herd., Eichh., Heinr., find a more minute determination derived 
from the fundamental view of the entire Apoc. The locusts are the Zealots.8 
The star is, according to Grot., Eleasar, the son of Ananias; according to 
Herd., Manaim. The abyss opened by him is, according to Grot., “the 
seditious doctrine that obedience must not be rendered the Romans,” for 
(καὶ, ver. 8 = nam) from this the party of the Zealots arose to the injury of 
the Jews; according to Herd., “ the fortress Masada.” Abaddon is, according 
to Grot., “the spirit which animated those Zealots;” according to Herder, 
Simon, the son of Gorion. To Vitr. and Beng., chronology suggests a more 
minute determination; in the time succeeding the fourth events of the trum- 
pet-vision, something must be found to which the fifth trumpet-vision could 
be referred. Hence Vitr. conjectured the incursions of the Goths into the 
Western Roman Empire in the beginning of the fifth century; Beng. under- 
stood the persecution of the Jews in Persia in the sixth century. Volkm. 
understands the army of Parthians to be led by Nero against Rome.* With- 
out any more minute determination, Hengstenb. interprets the fifth trumpet 
as referring to the distresses of war, and the locusts to soldiers. ‘One of the 
many incarnations of Apollyon” was Napoleon, whose name has a “note- 
worthy similarity ” to the name of the king of the locusts. A special indica- 
tion will be found in the text, that the locusts are to be understood allegorically. 
Beda, already, said that such locusts as, according to ver. 4, are to eat neither 


1 Vitr., Beng., Hengstenb., Grot., Wetst., 5 Gerken also, who, through an entire series 
Herd., Eichh. of trifling expedients, puts a forced construc- 
2 Aret., Bull., Laun., ete. tion on the name Napoleon, thinks (p. 26) that 
3 According to Wetst., the army of Cestius. we may venture to derive it from ἀπόλλυμι, 


4 Cf. ver. 14. and therefore writes it Napolleon. 


284 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


grass nor leaves, could not be actual locusts, but must be men. But ver. 4 
is with more justice understood by other allegorists as a “figurative” mode 
of expression; as, e.g., by Bengel, who suggests “a lower, middle, and higher 
class of the sealed.” Otherwise N. de Lyra, Vitr., etc. If there be an alle- 
gory anywhere, every individual feature must be allegorically interpreted. 
But for this the text itself nowhere gives the least occasion. It cannot even 
be said, with De Wette, that what is demoniacal in the plague of locusts here 
portrayed is only to be conceived of as a symbol of their extreme destruc- 
tiveness; for however seriously and literally the demoniacal nature of these 
locusts be intended, it follows that they have no power,! even as demoniacal, 
over the sealed, who remain absolutely untouched ? by all the other plagues 
of the trumpet-visions. The plagues of the one vision are just as literally 
meant as those of the other, the infernal locusts with the tails of scorpions 
no less than war, famine, the commotion and darkening of the heavenly 
bodies. For John beholds a long series of various, and, as a whole, defi- 
nitely shaped plagues, as foretokens and preparations of the proper parousia. 
Whoever, then, as Hebart,® expects the literal fulfilment of all these visions, 
and, consequently, e.g., the actual appearance of the locusts described in 
ver. 1 sqq., it is true, does more justice to the text than any allegorist; but, 
because of a mechanical conception of inspiration and prophecy, he ignores. 
the distinction between the actual contents of prophecy, and the poetical 
form with which the same is invested in the enlightened spirit of the 
prophet, and not without a beautiful play of his holy fantasy. 

Vv. 13-21. The sixth trumpet-vision; a wonderful army of horsemen 
slew the third of men without causing repentance in those who were left. 
This visitation belongs to the second woe.4 

Vv. 13-15. At a divine command the trumpet-angel looses the four 
angels bound thus far at the Euphrates, under whose direction the immense 
army of horsemen is to bring its plagues. é 

καὶ ἤκουσα, «.t.A, What John hears® in the vision, he represents just as 
what he beheld (ver. 17), in consequence of the trumpet-vision. — φωνὴν 
μίαν ἐκ τῶν (τεσσάρων) κεράτων τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, K.7.A. In a linguistic respect it 
is possible that the precise number is intended indefinitely,® so that it is 
left entirely undecided as to whom the voice belongs, as vi. 6,’ although it 
is impossible to take ἐκ in the general sense of ἀπό, and to explain that the 
voice came from God enthroned back of the altar.? Cf., on the other hand, 
also, xv1. 7. Yet a more definite reference of the μίαν would result in con- 
neetion with the fact that the voice proceeds from the four horns of the 
altar. The altar from whose horns the voice proceeds is expressly desig- 
nated as that mentioned viii. 3 sqq.!° The circumstance, accordingly, that 
from its horns the voice proceeds which loosens the plagues described imme- 


1 Ver. 4. 6 « A yoice.” Ewald. Cf. viii. 13. Winer, 

2 Cf. vii. 1 sqq. p. 111. 7 De Wette. 

3’ Die Zweite Sichtbare Zukunft Christi, 8 ** Forth from,’’ like the Heb. 12, which 
Erl., 1850. includes the meaning of both prepositions. 

4 Cf. xi. 14. 9 Ew.i., Stern. 


5 Cf. vi. 3, 5, 7, 10. 10 And vi. 9 sqq. 


CHAP. IX. 13-15. 285 
diately afterwards, must have a similar meaning as the circumstance in 
’ viii. 5, that the fire cast upon the earth was taken from the same altar, i.e., 
the command of the angels to loose appears as a consequence of the prayers 
presented at the altar;? but after that, it is proper to understand the one 
(Divine) voice making manifest this special hearing of prayer, in contrast 
with the many voices of those who pray, heard and referred to also in viii. 3 
(τ. προσευχ. τῶν dy.). —It is a perversion, however, to consider the one voice 
in any special relation to the four horns of the altar; for, even apart from 
the critical uncertainty of the reading τεσσάρων, the sense forced from it? is 
extremely feeble, while the allegorical ὃ explanation 4 is without any support. 
Also the relation, which is in itself arbitrary, between the four horns and 
the “four sins,” ver. 21, and likewise the four angels, falls with the spurious 
τεσσάρων. ---- τῷ ἕκτῳ dyy. From the fact that here the trumpet-angel not only 
sounds the trumpet, but is himself engaged in the act which follows, the 
inference dare in no wise be drawn that the same relation occurs also in 
other passages where it is not explicitly stated. But if the question be 
asked why there is ascribed here’ to the proclaimer of the plagues a co-oper- 
ation with them, any reference to “economy of means” ® affords no satisfac- 
tory answer; for why this economy just here, which nevertheless does not 
universally prevail? As a reason lying in the subject itself is not percep- 
tible, it appears to be adopted only to avoid a barren uniformity, which 
would occur if the same angel who (viii. 5) cast the fire from the altar to 
the earth, or even if a new angel, who yet would have substantially the same 
position with that of the trumpet-angels, received now the command to 
loose the four angels at the Euphrates. — Aicov —’Evdparn. The article τοὺς 
τέσσ. ayy. has its definite reference, as viii. 2, to the following τοὺς ded.. «.7.2.,9 
but throughout does not indicate the identity, adopted by Beda, etc., of the 
angel here named with that mentioned in vii. 1 sqq. That the four angels 
are wicked angels,® not good," also not “corruptible,” —as De Wette and 
Ebrard say, when they uncertainly remark that we must not think directly 
of wicked angels,—is to be derived from their being bound,}? from their 
position on the Euphrates, and from the fact that they lead an army of an 
infernal kind, in which respect they are to be compared with the star which 


1 Cf. Hofm., De Wette, Bleek, Hengstenb., 
Ebrard, Klief. 
2 «That these four horns gave forth simul- 


taneously, not a diverse, but one and the same © 


voice” (Vitr., Hengstenb.). 

3 If it be considered that Beda, who does 
not have the ““ four” in his text, yet explains 
‘‘the horns, the Gospels projecting from the 
Church,” the conjecture is readily made that 
the number ¢en-was inserted in the interests of 
this allegorizing interpretation. 

4 «Tt indicates the harmonious preaching of 
the one Church, or the one faith, from the Four 
Gospels”? (Zeger. Cf. also Calov, etc.). Or, 


according to Grot., who understands by the © 


voices, “‘the prayers of exiles beseeching that 
they may return at some time to their ancestral 


abodes,” ‘*all places to which the Jews sent 
into exile the worshippers of Christ.” 

5 Hengstenb. Cf. also Beng., Ziill., Hofm. 

6 Against Beng. 

7 Cf. xvii. 1. 

8 De Wette. 9 Ebrard. 

10 Beda, Bengel, Ebrard, etc. 

11 Boss., Hengstenb. 

12 For the explanation of Bossuet, ‘‘ What 
binds the angels is the supreme command of 
God,” which Hengstenb. adopts, is a spiritual- 
istic subtilization that, besides, has no sense at 
all if Hengstenb. explains away the concrete 
idea of angel itself by the interpretation that 
in the angels the truth is embodied, that the 
bands of warriors led by them only act when 
they are sent. 


286 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

fell from heaven, ver. 1, as well as with the angel of the abyss, the king of 
the locusts, ver. 11.— The number four of the angels does not correspond ° 
to the four parts of the army led by them,! for of this the text says nothing,? 
but indicates? that the army is to be led on all four sides of the earth, in 
order to slay 4 the third of all men.5 Ebrard, in the interests of his allegor- 
ical explanation, emphasizes the number four of the angels leading the army, 
ver. 16 sqq., in contrast with the one king of the locusts, ver. 11. Thus in 
the one case there is a monarchical and in the other a democratical consti- 
tution; with which it also harmonizes, that in ver. 17 nothing is said of 
crowns as in ver. 7. Nevertheless, Ebrard does not expect the elucidation 
of the sixth as well as of the fifth trumpet-vision until its future fulfilment: 
the “spiritual mercenary hosts of superstition” are only foretokens of the 
still impending plagues. [See Note LIX., p. 293.] ἐπὶ τῷ ποταμῷ τῷ μεγάλῳ 
’Evdpary. This local designation has been received literally ;® and the appli- 
cation has been made, that the Parthian armies, so perilous to the Romans, 
mentioned in ver. 16 sqq., came from the neighborhood of the Euphrates,? 
or it is said that the Roman legions indicated in ver. 16 sqq. moved from 
the Euphrates against Jerusalem.® ‘The latter is without any truth;® Grot. 
already was therefore compelled to explain: The armies of the Roman com- 
manders, i.e., the four angels, extended to the Euphrates!}° But it is a valid 
objection to the view of Ewald, as well as that of Herder, that the armies 
portrayed in ver. 16 sqq. are by no means human armies, but just as cer-_ 
tainly of a supernatural kind, as the locusts of ver. 1 sqq., in their way. If 
the language of ver. 16 sqq., concerning actual martial bands, were to be 
interpreted therefore allegorically, Vitr., Beng., and many older expositors 
would be justified, who understood the army (16 sqq.) of the Tartars and 
Turks, and likewise, in connection with this, took the mention of the 
Euphrates in its proper geographical sense. But, unless we charge John 
with great confusion, we dare not say that “the bound angels ” are allegorical, 
— Parthian,!2 Roman commanders, or Turkish caliphs,'*— the “ Euphra- 
tes” on which they are bound literal, and the troops led by them again 
allegorical. Such confused inconsistency the purely allegorical explanation 
indeed avoids; but it also appears here so untenable and visionary, that, as 
it itself rests on no foundation, it offers no point whatever where it can be 
met by a definite counter argument. Wetst. says that the Euphrates is the 
Tiber, just as Babylon, ch. xiv. sqq., is Βοιηθ; 15 but in that passage it is 
explained, in the text itself, as to how Babylon is meant, while here nothing 
whatever concerning Babylon is said. With entire indefiniteness, Beda: 


1 Ewald. 

2 Ew. ii. refers entirely to various nations 
which must have rendered military service in 
the Parthian army. Cf. Dan. vii.4; Epiphan. 
(Haer. li. 34), who mentions Assyrians, Baby- 
lonians, Medes, and Persians. 

3 Cf. vii. 1. 

4 Cf. De Wette, Hengstenb. 

5 Vv. 15, 18. 

6 Cf. xvi. 12. 


7 Ewald. Cf.also De Wette, Rinck, Volkm. 

8 Herder. Cf. Grot., Eichh., etc. 

DCL Dacit., ει, νος 

10 «ὁ Tngentes exercitus ad E. usque pertinge- 
bant.”” 

11 Cf. also Bleek. 

12 Ew. i. 

14 Beng. 

15 Cf. N. de Lyra: “ The Euphrates is the 
Roman Empire.” 


13 Herd. 


CHAP. IX. 16-19. z 2817 


“ The power of the worldly kingdom, and the waves of persecutors.” — The 
context itself offers the correct conception, by recalling in the formal ex- 
pression 7, ποταμῷ τῷ μεγάλῷ Εὐφρ.1 the O. T.;? combining with this local 
designation, to be comprehended from the O. T. history, the description 
of an army whose dreadfulness far surpasses every thing of a human char- 
acter, and actual historical experience, but, besides, has an allegorical 
meaning as little as the locusts, ver. 1 sqq. The mention of the Euphrates 
is schematical ; i.e., John designates with concrete definiteness the district 
whence the supernatural army-plague is to traverse the world, by naming 
the precise region whence, in O. T. times, the divinely sent plagues of 
Assyrian armies came upon Israel. An entirely similar schematical sense 
would have occurred if John had called the place whence the locusts went 
forth, Egypt. That the Euphrates is the boundary of the land of Abra- 
ham # and David, is to be urged here as little as that it was the boundary 
of the Roman Empire;® the only matter of consequence is, that from the 
Euphrates formerly ‘‘the scourges of God” proceeded.? [Ὁ is also irrelevant 
to this schematical idea, that the subject of consideration is now a plague 
for all men, while previously the scourges of God were sent against Israel: 
the mode of view of the writer of the Apocalypse is only indicated as rooted 
in the O. T., in the fact that this concrete local designation appears before 
his gazing eyes. [See Note LX., p. 293.] ἡτοισαμένοι. Cf. vill. 6, where 
also iva follows. They were already prepared; only, up to the present, the 
bands held them. In ver. 16, therefore, the description of the army break-— 
ing forth under their command directly follows; the released angels imme- 
diately put themselves in motion with their armies. — εἰς τὴν ὥραν ---- καὶ ἐνιαυτόν. 
Although the gender of the nouns is different,§ the art. is placed only 
before the first, not only because it combines in general the common concep- 
tion of time, but also the close inner relation and determination of the indi- 
vidual conceptions to one another and through one another affords the idea 
of essential unity. For the expression, ascending from the hour to the 
year,® shows that the fixed hour occurs in the fixed day, the day in the fixed 
month, etc.!° Incorrectly, Luther: “for an hour,” etc. Just as incorrectly, 
_ Bengel: Since the art. occurs only once, a continuous period of time is indi- 
cated, — which, as a prophetic hour contains about eight ordinary days, and 
a prophetic day an ordinary half-year, he reckons as about two hundred and 
seven years, and understands it of the times of the Turk (634-840 A.D.). — 
τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθ. Men, in reference to whose torment (ver. 1 sqq.) nothing 
was said of a third (cf. ver. 4), are now slain by the sixth trumpet-plague in 
the same proportion as previously trees, ships, etc., were destroyed.1} 

Vy. 16-19. Description of the army led by the four released angels; its 
immense size, ver. 16; its supernatural nature, and terrible effect (vv. 17- 


1 Cf. Gen. xv. 18; Deut. i. 7; Jas. i. 4. 6 De Wette. 7 Hengstenb. 

2 De Wette, Ziill., Hofm., Hengstenb. 8 Cf. Winer, p. 120. 

3 Isa. vii. 20. Cf. viii. 7; Jer. xlvi. 10. SG Num i.4, Zeca. 1, 75. Has. i 15. 
Hengstenb. Cf. Primas, Ziill. Hengstenb. 

4 Hofm. 10 De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 


5 Ziill. 11 Cf. viii. 7, 9, 11, 12. 


288 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


19). — τοῦ ἵππους The explanatory variations τοῦ ἱππικοῦ and τῶν immu arose 
from the offence taken because John did not write, in accordance with 
classical usage, τῆς ἵππου. ---- δισμυριάδες μυριάδων ; i.e., two hundred millions. — 
ἥκουσα, «.7.A., is added by asyndeton, since an explanation is necessary as to 
whence it was that John knew of the immense number.!_ Beda, who prefers 
to render the Greek expression by ‘‘ bis myriades myridaum,” than with the 
Vulg., “vicies millies dena millia,” finds here “a deceitful duplicity of the 
perverse army.” Beng. thinks that the Turkish army could readily have 
reached that number; viz., in the course of the entire two hundred and seven 
years of their dominion (cf. ver. 15). Hengstenb. recognizes the unnatural- 
ness of the number, and concludes thence that it is meant allegorically; 
it is to be ascribed to no particular war, but to “ the class personified,” as in 
all the preceding trumpet-visions. But since the army itself, ver. 17 sqq., is 
not described allegorically, the number can be allegorical as little as the 
local designation, ver. 14: but this number is likewise schematical;? i.e., 
the army, which is on all occasions beheld as definite, individual, and super- . 
natural in its entire character, appears also in a concrete but supernatural 
numerical quantity. An allusion to Ps. lxviii. 18 may be regarded as the sub- 
stratum of the concrete number here presented to the prophet in his vision. 
[See Note LXI., p. 293.] That John, when he now wishes to describe the 
horses and riders seen by him (καὶ οὕτως εἶδον, «.7.A.), adds explicitly ἐν τῇ 
ὁράσει to the eidov τ. ἵππ., can occasion surprise only as this formula, ordinarily 
employed by the ancient prophets,” does not occur more frequently in the 
Apoc.; but from the fact that it is nowhere found except in this passage, 
although it could stand everywhere with the εἶδον indicating a prophetic 
ὅρασις, nothing less follows than that the present vision has an allegorical 
meaning, as Beng. and Hengstenb.? affirm; the latter of whom, spiritualizing 
throughout, says, “In the vision every thing is seen; that which is inner 
must imprint itself on what is outward, the spiritual must assume a body; ” 
and thus in the color of the breastplate, described immediately afterwards, 
he sees only a “ pictorial expression ” of the murderous spirit of the soldiers, 
who are to be understood literally. But even granting that the idea of 
vision here presupposed were correct, the eidov, in itself, would here, as 
everywhere, point to this allegorizing. For, why should we find just here 
the express addition ἐν τῇ ὁράσει ὃ In it, no intention whatever is to be per- 
ceived, and least of all, that of giving an exegetical hint: it is possible, 
therefore, that John here added the ἐν τῇ dpace to his εἶδον involuntarily, 
because, in the sixth trumpet-vision, what has thus far been advanced is 
what he has heard, while he now intends to describe the forms as they 
appeared to him in the vision. —The first part of the description, ἔχοντας 
θώρακας ---- θείωδεις, is referred by Beng., Ewald, De Wette, Hengstenb., Bleek, 
only to τοὺς καθημένους ἐπ’ avt., as if the description of the horses were given 
uninterruptedly and completely, only after that of the riders had been given 
more incidentally. But Ziill. and Ebrard have more correctly referred the 


1 Cf. vii. 4. troops of riders identical with the ““ worldly 
2 ©f? Dane vill. 2, 1x. 21. war-power ” described in vv. 1-12, which now 
8 Klief. also, who explains (p. 152) the proceeds to slay men. 


CHAP. IX. 16-19. 289 


ἔχοντας, «.7.A., to the horses and the riders; for it is the more improbable that 
the first feature of the description, which is expressly stated to be a descrip- 
tion of the horses, should not apply to them, as the color of the breastplates 
has a correspondence with the things proceeding from the mouths of the 
horses. In general, the treatment is not concerning the riders, but the 
horses ; so that the words καὶ τ. καθημ. ἐπ’ avr. contain only what is incidental, 
and in no way hinder the reference of ἔχ. θώρ., x.7.A., to τ. imzove. — θώρακας 
mupivove, .7.A. The πυρίνους and the θειώδεις designate, Just as the ὑακίνθινους, 
only the color ;1 and, besides, there are three colors to be regarded in their 
particularity, because they correspond to the three things coming from the 
mouths of the horses.2 The ὑακινθίνους, which designates dark red, corre- 
sponds excellently with the succeeding καπνός. --- καὶ ai κεφ., x.7.A. The heads 
of the horses were like the heads of lions, possibly similar to lion heads in 
the size of the mouths and the length of the manes;# it is a definite, mon- 
strous appearance, that is represented, and not in general that the heads of 
the horses are “ fierce and terrible,” ὅ which, of course, is suited better to the 
allegorical explanation. — κ. ἐκ τ᾿ στομάτων, κιτιΔ. How seriously the descrip- 
tion is meant, may be inferred from the fact, that in ver. 18 the fire, the 
smoke, and the sulphur, proceeding from the mouths of the horses, are 
expressly designated as the three plagues whereby © these armies are to slay 
men, just as the locusts tormented them with their scorpion stings. Fire, 
smoke, and sulphur — of which the latter, according to the analogy of xxi. 
8, xiv. 10, xix. 20, indicates the infernal nature of the plagues ?— are as 
little intended to be allegorical as, e.g., the famine or the killing in the 
seal-visions. The allegorical interpretation, therefore, manifests also here 
the most singularly arbitrary expedients. They who-understand the whole 
of heretics interpret the fire as “the desire for injuring; ” the smoke, as “ the 
seeming zeal of faith,” because smoke is blue like the heavens; the sulphur, 
as “the deformity of vices.”® Similar is the interpretation in Aret., Luther, 
Calov., etc., who think, it is true, of the Turks, but have especially in view 
their erroneous doctrine. What proceeds from the mouths of the horses is, 
according to Caloy., properly the Koran, which comprehends within itself 
“sulphurous lust, the smoke of false doctrines, and the fires of wars.” To 
expositors who understand the armies, ver. 16 sqq., of actual soldiers, — even 


1 Against Ziill., who understands a breast- 
plate of copper, blue steel, and brass. Cf.also 
Eichh., who thinks of an iron and bronze 
breastplate folished and shining in the sun- 
light. Still more inaptly, Heinr.: πυρ. 18 truly 
fiery; ὑακινθ. signifies polished steel; θειωδ,, 
exhaling a sulphurous odor. 

2 Against Ewald: ‘‘ Regard therefore the 
red, shining, and glowing colors brought to- 
gether in order to denote the height of bril- 
liancy.”’ 

3 See the lexicons. 

5 Beng., Hengstenb. 

Cf. Winer, p. 348. 
7 Hengstenb. 


4 Ewald. 


6 ἀπὸ. 


8 The classical myth, in accordance with 
which Ovid (Jet., vii. 104 sq.) writes : — 


** Ecce, adamanteis vulcanum naribus efflant 
Acripedes tauri, tactaeque vaporibus herbae 
Ardent.” 


[‘* So the brazen-footed oxen breathe fire from 
their adamantine nostrils, and the grass touched 
by the vapors glows’’], (cf. Virg., Georg. ii. 
140: ‘“* Tauri spirantes naribus ignem,” “ Oxen 
breathing fire from their nostrils’”’), may be 
compared, as it expresses with all seriousness 
that those oxen were actually fire-breathing. 
9 N. de Lyra. Cf. also Ebrard. 


290 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


notwithstanding the fact that what is said in the text refers not to horsemen, 
the supposed “cavalrymen,” so much as to the horses,— nothing is readier 
than to ascribe the fire, smoke, and sulphur, to fiery missiles. Much more 
correctly, therefore, from the standpoint of the allegory, did, e.g., Grotius 
understand the firebrands cast into Jerusalem,! than Hengstenb., who under- 
stands “the fierce animosity, the spirit of murder, and lust for destruction,” 
described by personification as soldiers; after the example of Bengel, who 
only is unwilling to think of cannon and powder-smoke, because the follow- 
ers of Mohammed did not, as yet, possess such implements of war. —7 γὰρ 
ἐξουσία, «.7.A. Cf. vv. 38, 10. With reference to ver. 18, it is especially 
emphasized, that the proper power of the horses lies in their mouths; 
besides this, a second point is added, καὶ ἐν ταὶς οὐραῖς αὐτων. But in how far 
there is also in the tails an ἐξουσία, is explained (γὰρ) : ai γὰρ οὐραὶ αὐτῶν ὅμοιαι 
ὄφεσιν, κιτιλ, The tails of the horses are, therefore, serpent-like,? especially 
because these tails have heads; so that they are such as to do injury (ἐν 
αὐταὶς, 86., ovpaic, ἀδικ.). It is entirely inapplicable to explain this feature in 
the description of the monstrous horses, from the analogy of the ancient fic- 
tion 3 concerning the so-called ἀμφίσβαινα (i.e., the serpent moving forwards 
and backwards) with two heads;* since here nothing whatever is said of 
two-headed serpents, but instead of the usual horse-tail, something in ser- 
pent form, viz., which has a serpent’s head, is presented. — Hengstenb.®* finds 
here the “ malignity ” of war symbolized. But why should Bengel be mis- 
taken, who explains that the horsemen (the Turks), even when they turn 
their backs and seem to flee, do injury? Or is it not still more consistent 
when Grot. mentions, with reference to this, that with the ancients infantry 
frequently sat back of the cavalry? Volkm., without seeming to exercise 
the best judgment, is satisfied with referring this to the kicking-back of the 
horses. 

Ver. 20 sq. The plagues that have been introduced cause no repentance 
in the survivors. — oi λοιποὶ τ. avép. The contextual reference to ver. 18 is 
yet expressly marked: of οὐκ ἀπεκτ. ἐν τ. πληγ. radr. As the é is meant to 
limit the οὐ μετενόησαν, the final clause, iva μὴ, κιτ.λ.1 is explained: they 
repented not of the works of their hands, in order not (any more) to wor- 
ship, ete. The μετανοεὶν ἐκ τ. ἔργ. τ. yeep. ait. would have as its intention the 
ceasing henceforth the προσκυνεῖν, x.7.A. But by the words iva μὴ προσκ., x.7.A.5 
not only is the pregnancy of the clause μεταν. ἐκ τ. ἔργων τ. χειρ. αὐτ., Which in 
itself is readily intelligible, explained, but an authentic interpretation is also 
given to the expression τ᾿ ἔργ. τ. χειρ. avt-, Which it is here impossible to des- 
ignate as the entire course of life, — which by no means follows ffom ii. 22, 
xvi. 11, since there the characteristic τῶν χειρῶν air. is lacking, — but just as 
Acts vii. 41, in connection with O. T. passages like Deut. iv. 28, Ps. exxxv. 
15 sqq., must designate idols made with their own hands.? It is, indeed, 


1 «They seemed to proceed from the mouth 5 Cf. also Stern, Ebrard. 
of the horses, because they flew from before 6 Cf. xvi. 11. 
their mouths.” 2 See on ver. 10. 7 Cf. Winer, p. 428. 
5 Wetst., Beng., Herd., Ew., etc. 8 «All the deeds of life’? (Ewald, De 


4 Plin., H. N., viii. 35: ‘* The double head Wette, Ebrard). : 
of the amphisbaenae, i.e., also at the tail.” ® Beng., Hengstenb,; also Ew. ii. 


CHAP. IX. 20, 21. 291 


to be observed, that not only the expression τ. ἔργ. τ. χείρ. adr. in itself, but 
also the allusion to the material whence human hands have fashioned the 
idols, and to their blindness and dumbness, refer to O. T. descriptions. But 
that the discourse is first in general concerning “ the works of men’s hands,” 
and that then a more minute presentation follows (iva μὴ mpoox., x.7.A.), con- 
tains what is objectionable as little as the directly opposite order of Acts vii. 
41.— ra δαιμόνια. Cf. 1 Cor. x. 20. Bengel suffers here a peculiar embar- 
rassment, because he regards “the rest of men” especially as “so-called 
Christians,” and then must give the explanation as to how far they wor- 
shipped devils. But he knows how to help himself. Notwithstanding the 
incursions of the Turks, he says that the Christians of that time retained 
the worship of images and of saints; and now there might be many among 
the worshipping saints who abode not in heaven, but in hell. — καὶ ob μετεν. 
The repetition is necessary, because the former οὐ yerev., ver. 20, is already 
too remote to admit of a connection} with what follows in ver. 21 (ἐκ τ. 
φόνων, x.7.A.), but is entirely irrelevant for the more detailed explanation 
of the whole text.2 Concerning the sequence of the particles od, οὔτε, 
οὔτε, οἷ. Winer, p. 457. --- φαρμακειῶν. Sorceries, xviii. 23.8 Ebrard under- 
stands it symbolically of “seductive enchantments.” He reaches this con- 
clusion, because in ver. 20 he finds sins against God; in ver. 21, sins against 
one’s neighbor, while actual sorcery, as a sin against God, does not belong 
in ver. 21.4 But the established linguistic usage suits no arbitrary disposi- 
tions. It is also to be stated against those who have regarded the φαρμακ. 
in a certain combination with the preceding φόνων, or with the succeeding 
nopveiac,® that the very generally expressed idea of sorcery, — the plural also 
should be observed, — according to its nature, does not admit of a more 
specific determination, as the text itself does not give such. — τῆς πορνείας αὖτ. 
The sing. designates all the particular forms of manifestation’? of the always 
same kind of sins. Beng. says appropriately: “Other crimes are com- 
mitted by men at intervals; πορνεία alone is perpetual with those who are 
destitute of purity of heart.” — The entire description of sins, vv. 20, 21, 
which is to be comprehended in its unity, is manifestly directed to essen- 
tially heathenish godlessness, so that they of whom the third are killed, and 
two-thirds survive but are not converted, are to be regarded essentially as 
heathen.§ [See Note LXII., p. 294] It is the mass of the κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ 
τῆς γῆς,3 in contrast with the sealed.1° From the fact that the latter are not 
affected by the plague of the sixth trumpet, it is to be inferred, according to 
the standard of ver. 4, that the armies in this vision, like the locusts of the 
fifth trumpet, are of a demoniacal kind. 


1 Ewald, ete. 5 Hengstenb. 
2 Possibly as a designation of ἔργ. τ. xetp. 6 Ewald. 
avr. (ver. 20), or a classification of sins. 7 Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 2. 
ὃ Cf. Meyer on Gal. v, 20. 8’ Cf. De Wette, etc. 
4 Cf. also Hengstenb., who, besides, notes 9 Cf. vi. 10. 
the ten sins against the first table (ver. 20)? 10 Cf, vii. 1 sqq. 


and the four sins against the second table. 


4) THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LVI. Ver. 1. τῆς ἀβύσσου. 


Cf. Gebhardt: ‘‘ These expressions are based upon rabbinical representa- 
tions, originating from such O. T. statements as Ps. ]xxxi. 20, evii. 26; Isa. xiv. 
15 (cf. Isa. v. 14, xxx. 33), according to which there is under the earth an abyss 
or bottomless pit, with a lake or sea in which brimstone and fire seethe together. 
From this abyss goes a channel with a mouth, after the manner of a cistern, a 
narrow passage, as from a scarcely visible spring, to the surface of the earth. 
This pit, like an ordinary cistern, can be opened and closed, or sealed. . . . The 
abyss in its signification is a perfect antithesis to heaven. The latter is an 
invisible, but real, ideal world, which one day with the new heavens and the 
new earth, and the new Jerusalem, will become a visible reality. So also the 
former is the invisible, but real, world of the anti-ideal and the ungodly, which 
will also become a visible (cf. ch. xiv. 10) reality in the lake of fire and 
brimstone, with its torment and its smoke which ascends for ever and ever; 
just as the new Jerusalem is now in heaven, so the lake of fire and brimstone 
is now in the abyss.’’ Cremer: ‘‘ It is just this antithesis to heaven that makes 
ἄβυσσος a synonym for ἀδης, wherein that remoteness from heaven which 15 
distinctive of Hades finds full expression. In Rev. ix. 1, 2, τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ἀβύσσου 
(xx. 1) appears as the receptacle and prison of destructive powers, over which 
reigns ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς ἀβύσσου (ix: 11); cf. the petition of the demons (Luke viii. 
31). In Rev. xvii. 8, xi. 7, ἀναβαίνειν ἐκ τῆς ἀβύσσου is said of the beast 
(xiii. 18).”’ 


LVII. Vv. 7-10. 


For a very full and condensed statement of the devastations caused by 
locusts, and their peculiarities, in which some of the features here detailed 
appear, see Pusey on Joel ii. The significance of the individual features is thus 
briefly interpreted by Luthardt: ‘‘ At the basis of the description, there lies, for 
the most part, reality; but it is increased to what is monstrous and terrible. 
‘On their heads, as it were crowns of gold;’ i.e., they are mighty powers. 
‘Their faces were as the faces of men;’ i.e., they are intellectual beings, 
intelligences. ‘They had hair as the hair of women;’ i.e., they are seductive 
powers. ‘Their teeth were as the teeth of lions;’ i.e., back of their seductive 
appearance is inevitable destruction. Cf. Joeli. 6. ‘They had breastplates, as 
it were breastplates of iron;’ i.e., they are unassailable. ‘The sound of their 
wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle;’ i.e., they 
rush like military squadrons irresistibly. Cf. Joel ii. 5. ‘Tails like unto 
scorpions;’ i.e., malicious force inflicting injury backwards.”’ 


LVIII. Ver. 11. ᾿Αβαδδών. 


Alford: ‘It is a question who this angel of the abyss is. Perhaps, for 
accurate distinction’s sake, we must not identify him with Satan himself (cf. 
ch. xii. 3, 9), but must regard him as one of the principal of the bad angels.” 
Weiss (Bib. Theol. of N. T., ii. 270 sq.): ‘‘He [se., Satan] seduced a portion 
of the angels, who are also (i. 20) symbolized by stars, to fall away from God, 


NOTES, 293 
so that they are now designated as his angels. It is such a Satan-angel who is 
the star fallen from heaven (ix. 1), who lets loose the plague of locusts from the 
abyss over the inhabitants of the earth, and is expressly designated (ver. 11) as 
the angel of the abyss, Abaddon or Apollyon.’’ Luthardt emphasizes the 
contrast which Diisterdieck rejects, and closely follows Hengstenberg: ‘‘ The 
angel of the abyss, i.e., Satan. Between him and the Saviour the choice of the 
world is divided. He who will not have the latter as Lord must have the 
former, who is hereafter to attain still greater power on earth than now; cf. 
2 Thess. ii. 11, 12.”’ Beck objects to the identification of the angel and the 
star, on the ground that the latter was only ‘‘ an astronomico-physical phenom- 
enon.’”? But to what, then, does the αὐτῷ of ver. 1 refer ὃ 


LIX. Ver. 14. τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους. 


Hengstenberg accounts for the number “ four” as indicating the “all-sided- 
ness,’ ‘*the cecumenical character, of the Divine judgment.’’ Alford: ‘‘ The 
question need not perplex us here, whether these are good or bad angels; for it 
does not enter in any way into consideration. They simply appear, as in other 
parts of this book, as ministers of the Divine purposes, and pass out of view as 
soon as mentioned.” 


LX. Ver. 14. τῷ ποταμῷ τῷ μεγάλῳ Εὐφράτῃ. 


Alford remarks, on Diist.’s opinion that if we take the Euphrates literally, 
and the rest mystically, endless confusion would be introduced: ‘‘ This is quite 
a mistake, as the slightest consideration will show. It is a common feature of 
Scripture allegory to intermingle with its mystic language literal designations 
of time and place. Take, for instance, the allegory in Ps. Ilxxx. 8, 11: ‘Thou 
hast brought a vine out of Egypt. . . . She sent out her boughs unto the sea, 
and her branches unto the river;’ where, though the vine and her boughs and 
branches are mystical, Egypt, the sea, and the river are all literal.’’ Neverthe- 
less, the position of Hengstenb., concurring with that of Diisterdieck, seems 
correct: ‘‘ The local designation is only a seeming one. The Euphrates belongs 
no less to the vision, which loves to take, as the substratum of its views, events 
in the past agreeing in character (cf. Isa. xi. 15, 16; Zech. x. 11), e.g., the four 
angels there bound. Every historical interpretation, as, e.g., the reference to 
the Euphrates as the boundary of the Roman Empire, and to the dangers which 
threatened the Romans from the Parthians, apart from the mistake, in general, 
as to the meaning of the trumpets, is excluded by the immense number in ver. 
16. What is said in vv. 20, 21, is not concerning the Romans, but concerning 
men.”’ 


LXI. Ver. 16. δισμυριάδες μυριάδων. 


Beck interprets the number literally, and explains it by colossal military 
expeditions and wars to occur throughout the whole world, as intimated by 
vv. 15, 18, τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων, and ver. 20, of λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων: “a 
universal war involving all races of men, analogous to the migrations of 
nations, the first appearance of Mohammedanism, the Crusades,” and illus- 
trates its probability by referring to the now estimated one thousand millions of 
the earth’s inhabitants. 


294 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


LXII. Ver. 21. ἐκ τῶν φόνων, k.7.A, 


; Luthardt: ‘‘ These are the chief sins of heathenism. Such moral corruption 

will occur at the end, in spite of advanced culture; for culture of itself does not 
promote morality, but, as history teaches, may be employed as well in the 
service of ungodliness and immorality.’’ Calov., in harmony with his scheme 
of interpretation, refers all these crimes to the Papal antichrist. 


CHAP. X. 295 


CHAPTER X. 


Ver. 1. ἄλλον before ayy. (A, C, 8, Vulg., Elz., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. 
[W. and H.]) is omitted in a number of minusc., MSS., and deleted by Matth.; 


‘the transposition dyy. ἄλλον (16, Primas) also occurs; both upon the ground that 


in what precedes, either no angel, or at least no ‘‘ mighty”? angel, can be found 
to whom the one here mentioned may be compared. Cf. De Wette. ἡ ‘pu. The 
art. lacking in Elz. is entirely certain (A, C, 8, minusc., Beng., Griesb., etc.). 
ἐπὶ τὴν κεφ. So A, C, Treg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The gen. τῆς xed. 
(Elz., Beng., Griesb., Matth.) is a modification supported only by &. On the 
other hand, in the Elz. edition (ver. 2) the acc. τὴν 0aA., τὴν y., occurs instead of 
the original gen. — Ver. 2. καὶ ἔχων. Thus, already, Griesb. in accordance with 
decisive witnesses, instead of the modification καὶ εἶχεν (Elz.).— Ver. 4. The 
interpretation ὅσα in δὲ (quae, Primas), instead of ὅτε, concurs in testimony 
against the addition τὰς φωνὰς ἑαυτῶν in Elz. — avira: A, C, 8, Lach., Tisch. [W. 
and H.]. Without witnesses: ταῦτα (Elz.).— Ver.6. The omission of the words 
καὶ τ, 040, κ. τὰ ἐν αὐτῃ in A, &’, depends upon an easily explained oversight. 
They belong to the completeness of the formal discourse, and are sufficiently 
defended by C, Vulg., etc. Lach. has parenthesized them. οὐκέτι ἔσται. So A, 
C, al., Griesb., ete. Incorrectly, Elz.: οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι. --- Ver. 7. τοὺς ἑαυτ. δούλους 
mpod. A, Ὁ, δὲ, al. (Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]) assure the acc. The 
dat. (Elz., Beng.) is a modification. — Ver. 8. λαλοῦσαν ---- λέγουσαν. A, C, &, 7, 
14, Vulg., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The unauthorized nom. is a modification 
(Elz., Beng., Griesb., Matth.). τοῦ ayye. The art. is received already by 
Griesb., according to decisive witnesses in the Elz. text. — Ver. 11. καὶ Aéyovoiv 
μοι. <A, 8, 9, 13, al., Areth. (cf. also Vulg.), Matth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. 
The sing. λέγει (Elz., Beng., Griesb.) is modifying. & has, besides the plural, 
several interpretations. 


It is manifest that in ch. x. an interlude begins, which occurs here be- 
tween the sixth (finished in ix. 21) and seventh (beginning in xi. 15) trum- 
pet-visions, just as the scene interposed ‘in ch. vii. between the sixth and 
seventh seal-visions. But in this passage the relation is the more difficult, 
especially from the fact that the interlude, not so definitely circumscribed 
as that of ch. vii., proceeds from the continuous course of the proper main 
visions, since, at any rate, one part of what is described from x. 1 to xi. 13 
belongs to the second woe, whose conclusion is marked in xi. 14, but whose 
first part was contained in the sixth trumpet-vision.1 This must be firmly 
maintained, as a matter of course, against De Wette, etc., who find the 
second woe in ix. 13-21, yet without supporting further false consequences 
upon this error contrary to the context, but especially against Hengstenb., 


2 Cf. ix. 12. 


296 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
according to whom the entire conception of the section, x. 1-xi. 14 (and still 
further of xi. 15 sqq.), coincides with the view that the episode extends from 
x. 1 to xi. 13, and that xi. 14 immediately joins ix. 21. But if something 
were not contained within this episode that belongs to the second woe, xi. 14 
could not stand in its place, but must immediately follow ix. 21. — Ebrard 
commits an error opposite to that of Hengstenb., since he? finds the second 
woe only within the episode,? and so conceals the entrance of the episode 
into the course of the trumpet-visions, that he does not reckon the sixth 
trumpet-plague in the second woe. Cf., besides, Vitr., who, on the other 
hand, identifies the sixth trumpet-vision with the second woe, and reckons it 
as continuing until xi. 16.8— In another form, the question recurs to the rela- 
tion of the interlude to the main course of the visions, if the subject con- 
sidered be how far the prophecy (x. 11) extends, which John is to proclaim as a 
consequence of having eaten the book offered him by the angel (x. 2, 8 sqq.). 
Prior to the exposition of the details, it may be remarked concerning the 
meaning of the entire section, x. 1-xi. 14: (1) The essential reference of 
the interlude in which an angel from heaven brings John a little book, in 
order that he may eat it and then prophesy anew, is determined by a 
formal address of the angel himself, confirmed by an oath (ver. 7), viz., that. 
forthwith at the seventh sound of the trumpet, as also the entire course of 
ες the visions hitherto leads us to expect, the end is tocome. (2) Immediately 
with the sounding of the seventh trumpet, coincides the speedy approach of 
the third woe (xi. 14). If it were conceded that the part of the second woe 
described in ch. 11 referred to the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. ver. 8), it 
would be obvious how precisely John distinguishes the proper final catas- 
trophe, to which the chief course of the visions extends, from that act of 
judgment still falling in the second woe, but at the same time also preserves 
the inner connection between this special act of judgment and that final ful- 
filment,‘ i.e., the eschatological character of the judgment on Jerusalem, by 
representing both in the one consequence of the woe. 

Vv. 1,2. An angel comes down from heaven with an open little book in 
his hand. — eidov — καταβαΐνοντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. A difficulty has been found 
in that John, whose own standpoint from iv. 1 is in heaven, sees an angel 
descend from heaven. LEichh., therefore, explains very arbitrarily: “In the 
heavenly theatre wherein the whole drama is being represented, he descended 
from that part which expressed heaven, to that which imitated the earth.” 
Hengstenb. obliterates that precise presentation from a standpoint taken in 
the vision: “It is most natural that John, from the earth, saw the mighty 
angel descend from heaven.” Nevertheless he does not admit, with De 
Wette, that here, as in vii. 1 sqq., the seer has exchanged his standpoint 
in heaven ® for one on earth, — yet without understanding how the seer de- 
scended, — but Hengstenb. does not allow the application of any distinction 
between the one standpoint and the other: “That John is in heaven, is to 
be understood positively, and not exclusively.” As, according to John iii. 13, 


1 p. 348 sqq. 2 Viz., xi. 13. 4 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 
3 «The calamities (ix. 18-xi. 14) pertain to 5 Cf., on the other hand, also ver. 2. 
the second woe; i.e., to the sixth trumpet.” 6 iv. 1 sqq. 


CHAP. X. 1, 2. 297 


Christ was “at the same time in heaven and on earth,” so, in a certain 
respect, such twofoldness of existence is peculiar to all believers, according 
to Phil. iii. 20. But the question here is not concerning ethical citizenship 
in heaven, but concerning the locality fixed for ecstatic consciousness. 
Ewald properly maintains the heavenly standpoint of the seer, which is here 
as unobjectionable as in vi. 12 sqq., vii. 1 sqq., vill. 5, 7, 8, 10, ix. 1 sqq., 
xiii. sqq. Cf., concerning this, Introduction, sec. 1. — ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν. 
The angel distinguished from other angels by the ἄλλον is, as little as the one 
mentioned in vii. 2 or viii. 3, Christ himself.1_| The very form of the oath, 
ver. 6, is not appropriate to Christ.2_ When, on the other hand, Hengstenb. 
judges: “It would be presumption for a created angel to make such profes- 
sions,” because only God himself “could grant the Church what is here 
granted it,” he mistakes the announcement by the angelic messengers for 
the granting, i.e., the accomplishment; and when Hengstenb. afterwards 
remarks that “the appearance of Christ as an angel is in the same line with 
his state of humiliation,” and he therefore swears by Him who had sent him, 
this neither agrees with the preceding judgment, nor is in itself correct, 
because we can in no respect think of the heavenly Christ as in the form of 
humiliation. More correctly, therefore, have the older expositors explained, 
who regarded the mighty angel as the Lord himself in so far as they found 
in his entire appearance, and his individual attributes, a glory which be- 
longed to no mere angel.2— The more accurate determination, however, of 
the angel, transcends the text:+ we can inquire only concerning the relation 
indicated by the ἄλλον. De Wette, Hengstenb., etc., propose a contrast with 
the trumpet-angels;5 but partly because of the designation ἄλλ. ayy. ἰσχυρόν, 
and partly because of the parallel of the book with the sealed book, ch. v., the 
reference to the dyy. ἰσχυρόν (v.2) appears to be nearer.6 [See Note LXIII., 
p- 808.] περιβεβλημένον νεφέλην ---- πυρός. With correctness, Beng., Ew., etc., 
proceed to comprehend the four special points of the description in their 
unified significance. These are, however, emblematic attributes which must 
be understood in the concrete biblical sense. Thus the parallel of the Hora- 
tian Nube candentes humeros amictus augur Apollo’ appears purely accidental 
and inwardly remote; and as the entire description has as its intentien 
something more definite than to represent in general the brilliancy of the 
angel’s form, so the clothing him in a cloud has not only the external pur- 
pose to subdue to a certain extent that brilliancy.§ The cloud characterizes 
the angel as a messenger of divine judgment.? With this agree “the feet 
as pillars of fire,” 19 while the rainbow, the sign of the covenant of grace," on 


3 Against Beda, Alcas., Zeg., Aret., Par., 5 Perhaps with the eagle-angel, viii. 13 (De 
Calov., Heugstenb., etc. Cf. also Vitr., who Wette). 
is unwilling to distinguish between the Second 6 Beng., Ebrard. 
and Third Persons of the Godhead. For the 7“ The augur Apollo, with his shining 
correct interpretation, see Andr., Rib., Vieg., shoulders clothed with a shining cloud”’ (Lib. 
C. a Lap., Stern, Beng., De Wette, etc. Τ᾿, Θᾶ, 2; ver. 31). 

2 Cf. Beng. 8 Against Ewald; cf. also Heinr., etc. 

3. Cf. Beda, Zeg., Calov., etc. 9 Cf. i. 7; Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

4 Against Rinck, who means even the trum- 10 Cf. i. 15. 


pet angels, xvii. 1, xxi. 9. 11 Cf. iv. 3; Gen. ix. 11 sqq. 


298 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


the head of the angel, makes the angel appear as a messenger of peace, and 
the face shining like the sun? is an expression of the heavenly δόξα belong- 
ing thereto. The apparently contradictory emblems perfectly agree with 
the message which the angel himself formally announces, ver. 7; for if the 
O. T. promise confirmed by him is directed to final joy and eternal peace, 
the fulfilment, nevertheless, does not occur without the dreadful develop- 
ment of a judgment which the seventh trumpet is yet to make known. Just 
as, therefore, in this μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ the terrors of the act of judgment pre- 
cede its blessed fulfilment, so also the appearing of the heavenly messenger 
proclaims both at the same time. — The wrong interpretation of the em- 
blematic attributes of the angel? coincides in many expositors with the fact 
_ that they regarded the angel Christ; as Beda: “The face of the Lord shin- 
ing, i-e., his knowledge manifested by the glory of the resurrection, and the 
feet of him about to preach the gospel, and to announce peace illumined 
with the fire of the Holy Spirit, and strengthened like a pillar.” Zeg., Are- 
tius, ete., interpreted the clouds as Christ’s flesh. —xai ἔχων ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ 
BiBAupidvor Avewyuévov. Concerning the relation of this little book to the book, 
ch. v., what is said in ver. 8 sqq. first affords a judgment. From a com- 
parison with ver. 5, fhe result is reached, that it was the left hand of the 
angel which held the book.* But this is designated here a small book, by 
the diminutive form, not for the reason that only an inconsiderable volume 
is adapted for being eaten,4s— to such reflection, even a βιβλαρίδιον must 
appear too large, — also not in comparison with the large form of the angel,® 
but corresponding with the contents, which constitute only one part of the 
βιβλίον, ch. v.6 This book is brought to the seer opened, in contrast with the 
sealed book, which could be opened only by the Lamb, because John is to 
understand its full contents, to take the book into himself (cf. ver. 9), and 
then to prophesy. —«ai ἔθηκε ---- τῆς γῆς. By the angel’s placing his feet of 
fire upon the sea and the earth, he shows not only that “his intelligence 
belongs to the earth and the sea (the islands);”7 but more definitely aecord- 
ing to the analogy presented in Ps. viii. 7, ον]. 10, cx. 1, and corresponding 


to the entire meaning of the angelic form, he thus represents the power of. 


God in judgment, whose messenger he is, as extending over the whole earth.® 
The significant meaning, in this passage, of the angel in general, and of his 
course especially, is, however, to be understood only when the sea and the 
earth are interpreted no more allegorically than the angel himself. C.a Lap. 
thinks, in accord with Alcas., of heathen and Jews, to whom Christ preaches, 
i.e., causes the gospel to be preached. Hengstenb. abides by his interpreta- 
tion of the sea as the sea of peoples, and the earth as the cultivated world, 
as Beng. by his interpretation of Europe and Asia. If the question be in 
general, concerning a particular sign that these allegorizing explanations 
do not belong to the text, it is answered in that they either do not at all® 


1 Cf: 1.16, xviii! 1. 5 Beng. 
2 Concerning the allegorical explanation of 6 Ew. See on ver. 8 sqq. 
the whole, see the close of the chapter. 7 De Wette. 
3 Beng. 8 Of. Ew., Hengstenb., Volkm. 


4 Eichh. 9 Beng., Hengsteub.; also De Wette, etc. 


CHAP. X. 3, 4. 299 
explain the not indifferent course of the angel, who puts his right foot upon 
the sea and his left upon the earth, or that they do so with entire impro- 
priety.1_ John, as an inhabitant of Asia Minor, could not well, unless an 
entirely vague idea be entertained of him, regard the sea otherwise than in 
the definite form of the Mediterranean; while the place on earth on which 
the angel sets his foot is naturally the Asiatic main land. If the question 
be now concerning the idea lying in the setting-up of pillars of fire, as such, 
it is of course a matter of indifference as to what part of the sea and earth 
the seer could naturally have had in mind for his concrete contemplation ; 
but it cannot be without more definite reference, if the region towards which 
the so significant form of the angel is directed be indicated by the accurately 
described posture. The angel stands with his right foot on the sea,,with 
his left on the earth; and this is naturally to be concretely represented 
from the precise horizon of the seer, in the given way, if the angel look 
towards the south, towards the region of Jerusalem. But how well this 
agrees with his message (ver. 6 sqq ) and the contents of the book brought 
him, will be clear when the result is reached as to how the message of the 
angel refers especially to the judgment on Jerusalem. This applies also 
against Ew. ii., who explains: The angel put his right, i.e., his first (?), foot 
upon the Mediterranean, and then the left upon the land, i.e., Italy and 
Rome. Then only the more remote goal of the prophecy now beginning 
(ch. xiii. sqq.) would be indicated, while the important reference to the 
nearest object of the prophecy, Jerusalem (xi. 1 sqq.), would in an incom- 
prehensible way be lacking. © 
Vv. 3,4. Ata mighty call of the angel, seven voices of thunder sounded 
what John, however, was forbidden to write. — καὶ ἔκραξε ---- μυκᾶται. What the 
angel called, the text in no way indicates; at any rate, Beng. is incorrect in 
saying that what is described in ver. 6 may have been expressed by this cry. 
Only in general, the threatening character ? of this cry is to be recognized 
already from the fact that the mighty voice belonging to the strong angel ® 
is compared expressly with the roar of the lion,* as in the immediately suc- 
ceeding and, as it were, responsive voices of thunder. — The word μυκᾶσθαι 
properly expresses the bellowing of the bull,® yet in Theocritus ὃ there is also 
[See Note LXIV., p. 308.] αἱ ἑπτὰ Bpovrai. The 
art., which suggests some particular thunder, cannot refer to iv. 5.7. Ewald’s 
explanation, “ All seven thunders of the heavens seem to intimate that the 
whole heaven must be considered as having exclaimed with an unheard-of 
and terrible clamor,” has no biblical foundation, and proceeds from the later 
Jewish conception of seven heavens, as it ascribes to each heaven a special 
thunder. Heinr. says, too indefinitely : “Seven mightier thunders,” but is 


found μύκημα λεαίνης. 


1 Cf., e.g., Stern: The stronger right foot 
indicates the emphasis with which the world 
— the sea—is warned of the danger of Anti- 
christ. 

2 In so far, Ew. ii. decides not incorrectly 
(Rome, thou fallest’’); but the threatening 
of the angel in his cry, as in his significant 


manifestation, is directed first to Jerusalem, 
and afterwards to Rome. 

9. Cf. vi. 1, vii. 2. 

4 Cf. Hos. xi. 10; Am. iii. 8. 

5 Phavorinus: βρυχᾶσθαι ἐπὶ λέοντος " μυ- 
χᾶσθαι ἐπὶ βοός. Cf. Wetst. 

6 Id. xxvi. 21. 7 Against Beng. 


300 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. «* 

correct in making a comparison with the seven spirits of God,! and the seven 
angels ;? for here, where the question is concerning a definite manifestation 
by thunder, this occurs not only in the concrete number seven, — to which, 
besides, a certain outward occasion may have been given in the sevenfold 
description of the Divine voices of thunder, Ps. xxix.,3— but their sound is 
regarded also by John as a significant speech (ἐλάλησαν), as each thunder 
uttered its special voice (7. ἑαυτῶν φωνάς) which brought an intelligible reve- 
lation to the prophet.—In accordance with the command, i. 11, John 
wanted to write down what the thunder had said; the ἤμελλον yp., I was on 
the point of writing,* which does not suit the standpoint of proper vision, 
since within this any writing is inconceivable,® is explained from the stand- 
point. of the composition of the book ; but the exchange of these two stand- 
points is without difficulty, when considered as referring to the prophet now 
writing out his vision, and as based, indeed, upon the essential identity of 
the Divine revelation, which guides the writing, as well as the gazing, 
prophet, when he receives, in respect to this revelation, another command: 
καὶ ἤκουσα, k.t.A. The καὶ has neither here, nor anywhere else, an adversative 
meaning, but simply connects the new point, whose inner opposition to the 
preceding is not precisely marked.§ — φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. The expression 
does not compel us to regard John no longer in heaven;7 also from the 
standpoint which John occupies from iv. 1 (cf. ver. 1), he could designate a 
voice sounding from the depth of heaven as a guy. ἐκ τ. obp. That the voice 
belonged to Christ, — as Beng. infers from the command, i. 11, which here 
suffers an exception,— remains an ingenious conjecture. Ew. 11. proposes 
the angel-attendant of i. 1. See in loc.— The heavenly voice demands a 
complete silence concerning all that the thunders had uttered: σφράγισον --- καὶ 
μὴ αὐτὰ γράψῃς. The sealing is to occur just by the not writing; compare the 
reverse relation, xxii. 10. Contrary to the text, therefore, is every explana- 
tion that finds 8 in this passage a sealing that is in any way conditional,’ and 
entirely improper is the question as to what were the contents of the voices 
of the thunders. Beda regarded them identical with the seven trumpets; 
Zeg., as the oracles of all the prophets — before Christ ; Hengstenb.! thinks: 
“what is announced later concerning the destruction of the enemies of the 
kingdom of God, and the final victory, must be essentially identical with 
what is here previously kept secret.” Others have tried to conjecture from 
the context, if not the contents, yet the subject and character, of the utter- 
ance of the thunders. Hofm. has offered what is, in every respect, the 


1 i, 4, iv. 5. 2 viii. 2. 7 De Wette. 
3 Ziill., Hengstenb., Ebrard. 8 Cf. Dan. xii. 4, 9. 
4 Cf. xii. 4. 9 Beda: ‘“*Do not display the mysteries of 


5 From an entirely mechanical idea of in- 
spiration, the writing within an ecstasy of 
course appears inconceivable. Thus, e.g., even 
Limmert (Babel, p. 27 sq.) thinks: John, who 
in his writing had actually proceeded as far as 
the close of ch. ix., would have written even 
further. . 

6 Cf. Winer, p. 407 sqq. 


the Christian faith to all everywhere, lest they 
grow common, neither conceal them from the 
good, lest they be altogether hidden.” Hengst- 
enb., who justifies Brightmann’s paraphrase: 
‘*Do not insert these utterances in this, but 
reserve them for another, more appropriate 
place.” (Cf. also Ew. ii. 
10 Cf. also Stern. 


CHAP. X. 5-7. 901 


strangest suggestion, when he imagines how the seven thunders had ex- 
pressed the blessed mystery of the new world. Beng. considered the voices 
of thunder as those which mightily proclaim the praise of God. The other 
expositors have more correctly maintained the threatening significance of 
the voices of thunder; but their relation to the call of the angel is arbi- 
trarily stated by Herd.: “The thunders declared their curses, but John was 
forbidden to write them, as they are not to disturb the angel’s glad message; ” 
and by Eichh.: “ The thunders had announced the sad contents of the little 
book, in order that the glad message might remain for the angel.” 1 The 
seven thunders are referred to definite individual facts by Vitr., who 
understands the seven crusades; and by Ebrard, who thinks of the seven 
acts of God which will occur before the beginning of the seventh trumpet, 
and whereby God obtains for his people rest, and for himself glory before 
his enemies. Better than all the exegetes who have even attempted to 
discover something concerning the contents of the voices of thunder, did 
S. Brigitta esteem the text, of whom the legend says, that she wanted to 
know what the voices of thunder announced to John; she therefore prayed 
for a special revelation from God, and received it, whereby it was revealed 
to her that the thunder prophesied terrible judgments upon the persecutors 
of the Church.2— The question has also been asked, why John did not 
dare write the utterance of the thunders. Incorrectly, Ziill.: “ Because 
unbelievers would not be converted;” but it is neither certain that the 
thunder-voices had any such tendency, nor is the presumption in itself 
correct.2 Ew. mentions the contents of the voices of the thunder as “ex- 
ceeding human comprehension ;”* but John not only understood that dec- 
laration, but also regarded it intelligible to others, as he wanted to write . 
it. De Wette says only, that thereby the mysteriousness is to be increased. 
Volkm. recognizes only a literary reason: for writing, or rather for announ- 
cing, there is no longer time, as now the second part, the realization, comes. 
Yet there is still time sufficient to refer to new announcements (vv. 6, 11); 
for they follow as such, and not as realizations. It is well simply to 
acknowledge what is most obvious; viz., that the holy wisdom of God has 
given no account as to why this special revelation has not been made uni- 
versal § 

Vv. 5-7. The angel swears that immediately, viz., in the time of the 
seventh trumpet, which is at once to sound, the mystery of God shall be 
finished. — ἦρε τ. χεῖρα abt. τ. δεξιὰν εἰς τ. οὐρανὸν. The angel can raise’ only 
his right hand, because his left holds the little book, ver. 2. The signifi- 
cance of the gesture is derived from the form of the oath. He raises his 
hand to heaven as to the high and holy place where the Eternal, and ΑἹἸ- 
mighty dwells, who even himself, in swearing by himself, raises his own 
hand to heaven. — Concerning the ἐν in connection with ὥμωσεν, cf. Matt. 
v. 84 5α4.; Winer, p. 864. --- τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τ. aiwv. — ὃς ἔκτισε τ. οὐρανὸν, x.7.A. The 


1 Cf. ver. 9 8q., πικρανεῖ and γλυκύ. 5 See on p. 25. 6 Cf. Acts i. 7, 
2 Cf. C. a Lap. , 7 Cf. Dan. xii. 7; Gen. xiv. 22. 
3 Cf. xi. 13. 8 Cf. Isa. vii. 15. 


4 Cf. Beng., who refers to 2 Cor. xii. 4. 9 Deut. xxxii. 40. 


302 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


pragmatic reference of this appeal to God, as the Eternal and Creator of all 
things, lies in the fact that the subject of the oath is the μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ, 
therefore something concealed in God’s eternal decree, but which, in his time, 
he has not only in prophecy announced,—through the ancient prophets 
(ver. 7), and now through John (ver. 11, 1. 1 sqq.), —but also the Almighty 
Lord will infallibly bring about,! and that, too, ἐν τάχει (i. 1). For the 
angel swears, ὄτι χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται, “ that there should be time no longer.” The 
authentic norm for the correct explanation of this expression is given by 
what follows, which defines the same thing from the contrasted side, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν 
τ. Mu, κιτ.λ.). It is accordingly not an “entrance of a modern thought,” 2 but 
a complete misunderstanding of the text, when many interpreters, following 
Beda,? have understood the words χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται, of the absolute cessation 
of time, i.e., of the beginning of eternity. The opposite parallel, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τ. 
ἡμέραις, «.7.A., by virtue of its chronological nature, excludes every explana- 
tion which presents the formula χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται In any other way than 
chronologically. Ebrard, accordingly, is also incorrect when he understands 
by the χρόνος, a season of grace. On the other hand, however, the contrast, 
ver. 7, as well as also the tenor of the formula χρόν. οὐκ. tor., forbids us to rec- 
ognize in this a definite, technical expression of Apocalyptic chronology, as 
Bengel wished, who found here a “ non-chronus,” i.e., a period of more than 
a thousand and less than eleven hundred years, and accordingly reckoned 
the closing epoch of this “ non-chronus ” (i.e., the beginning of the thousand 
years’ reign) as the year 1836, since the starting-point occurred, at all events, 
before the year 842, the concluding year of the second woe,‘ and apparently 
in the year 800, in which the reign was established. Grot., Calov., Vitr., 
C. a Lap., Eichh., Ew., De Wette., Hengstenb., etc., have correctly recog- 
nized the fact that the words ypév. οὐκ. ἔσται express the immediate, and the 
indeed very positively defined (ver. 7), beginning of that which is called in 
ver. 7 the fulfilment of the mystery of God. But naturally, from this formal 
unanimity of the most expositors, there proceeds directly the greatest diver- 
sity of views, when the question is concerning the more precise reference of 
the formula, ypév. οὐκ. ἔστ. according to the standard of what is said in ver. 
7. But Vitr. is inaccurate, even in a formal respect, when he says, “No 
delay of time is to intervene between the sound of the seventh trumpet, and 
the fulfilment of the prophetic oracles ;”® for the affirmative determination, 
ver. 7, says in apposition to the words ὅτι yp. οὐκ. ἔσται, Which deny a further 
delay, that the (immediate, ver. 6) fulfilment of the mystery of God is to 
occur just at the time of the seventh trumpet. The question, therefore, is 
not concerning a delay, perhaps still occurring between the seventh sound 
of the trumpet and the fulfilment of the mystery of God; but the angel 
swears that between the present point of time (which falls after the close of 
the sixth trumpet, and before the second part of the second woe, that is fin- 
ished only at xi. 14), and the fulfilment of the mystery of God, which is to 
be expected within the time of the seventh trumpet, there will be no more 


1 Cf. the entirely similar reference of God’s 3 “ At the last trumpet, the mutable variety 
self-designation, i. 8. of secular ages will cease.” 
2 Hengstenb. 4 Cf. on ix. 13 sqq. 5 Likewise Hengstenb. 


CHAP. X. 5-7. : 303 


interval. [See Note LXV., p. 309.] What, therefore, might have been 
expected already after the close of the sixth seal-vision, but yet did not 
occur, because ch. vii. brought a special preparation, — and, besides, from the 
seventh seal itself the new series of trumpet-visions proceeded, ch. viii. sq., — 
is not to come immediately, and that, too, in the seventh trumpet. Yet it 
does not actually occur in xi. 16-19.1— ἄλλ᾽ ἐν τ. ἡμέραις τῆς φωνῆς Tod ἐβὸ. ἀγγ. 
These words in combination with the immediately succeeding ὅταν μέλλῃ 
σαλπίζειν, which contain an epexegetical description of the φωνῆς τ. 8d. dyy., 
appear to require an explanation like that of Bengel: “Thus the angel 
makes himself heard, not only at the beginning of these days, but continu- 
ally throughout them.” The additional remark, “at the end of the days 
this trumpet acquires the name of the last trump” (1 Cor. xv. 52), is, of 
course, entirely without foundation in the context. But even the first state- 
ment of Bengel conflicts with the analogy of all the trumpet-voices hitherto 
in their proper nature (which, nevertheless, the words ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπ. 
themselves recall); since, by the heavenly trumpet-sounds, not future things 
themselves, but only such manifestations as signify what is to occur on 
earth, are introduced. The seeming difficulty which lies, therefore, in the 
fact that what is said in ver. 7 is of the “days” of the seventh trumpet, but 
which cannot be explained by regarding a continuance of the trumpet-voice 
during the whole of the still future period of that (actual) day, is very 
simply explained if it be acknowledged ? that in the expression ἐν τ. ἡμέραις τ. 
φων. τ. £36. ayy. the standpoint of the vision is not purely maintained, but the 
reference to the events of the sixth trumpet-vision is intermingled; only 
from this last standpoint can we properly speak of the “days” ofthe last 
trumpet, viz., of the period in which that which is represented to the 
prophet by the final sound of the trumpet actually occurs. — καὶ ἐτελέσθη. The 
annexing of the conclusion is Hebraistic, since the καὶ with the aor. corre- 
_ sponds to the Vav with the perf.2— τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ. The contextual 
determination of this idea — whose character is indicated, in general, already 
by the correlate ideas of divine revelation (εὐηγγέλισε), and of prophecy (τ. 
mpog.) as the human announcement of the mystery revealed on God’s part *— 
lies partly in the fact that its actual fulfilment ὃ is placed in the time of the 
seventh, and consequently the last, trumpet; partly in that its revelation is 
conceived of by the prophets as a εὑαγγελίζειν, i.e., a communication of a 
joyful message. Besides, it needs no special proof, that the expression τοὺς 
ἑαυτ. δούλ., τοὺς προφήτας ὃ can refer only to O. T. prophets,’ but neither to N. T. 
prophets,’ nor to Christ and the apostles,® as the mystery of God revealed to 
these prophets, and proclaimed by them, is infinitely more than the “divine 
counsel concerning freeing Christians from the oppression of the Jews.” 19 


1 Against Hengstenb., etc. See on that 6 Concerning the acc., besides εὐηγγέλισε, 
passage. cf. Winer, p. 209. 

2 Cf. De Wette. 7 N. de Lyra, Beng., De Wette, etc. 

3 Exod. xvi. 6, xvii. 4, where the LXX. 8 Grot., who seeks them altogether among 
translate by καὶ with the fut. Cf. Ewald, the elders, v. 5, vii. 18. 
Ebrard, Winer, p. 260. 9 Eichh. 

4 Cf. Introduction, p. 82. 10 Kichh. Cf. Grot.: ‘That indeed is, that 


5 Cf. Luke xviii. 31. Christians were allowed by Hadrian a. resi- 


304 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


According to the contextual indication just given, the μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ, Whose 
contents are here declared only by the general allusion to the O. T. predic- 
tions, refers to nothing but the glorious completion of the divine kingdom, 
the final goal whereto the deepest current of O. T. prophecy, which is on 
that account essentially an Apocalyptic element, tends. The next authentic 
explanation of the proper contents of the μυστ. τ. 6. is contained in the heaven- 
ly song of praise sounding forth after the seventh sound of the trumpet, 
xi. 17 sqq. | 

Vy. 8-11. At the command of the heavenly voice (ver. 4), John eats the 
little book given him by the angel, and receives the instruction that he must 
once again prophesy. — 7 φωνὴ, ἣν ἤκουσα --- καὶ λέγουσαν. The construction in 
this correct reading ? is like that of iv. 1, but yet unsymmetrical, as here not 
only the λέγων in the mind of the author is received into the relative clause 
’ by attraction, but also the πάλιν is placed before λαλοῦσαν because of the con- 
nection of the declaration just repeated with that mentioned, ver. 4. If the 
sentence in which, in any case, the aor. ἤκουσα is intended as a plusquam- 
perfect, were altogether symmetrical in its reference to ver. 4 (cf. iv. 1), its 
construction in accord with the nom. ἡ φωνῇ would run: κ. 7 φων., ἣν ἤκ. ἐκ τ. 
op. λαλοῦσαν per’ ἐμοῦ, πάλιν ἐλάλησεν pet’ ἐμοῦ λέγουσα (λέγων). Likewise De 
Wette, Ebrard. —inaye. As in xvi. 1, Matt. ν. 24, viii. 4, etc.,? an actual 
going is represented, accordingly in ver. 9 it is said ἀπῆλθα. ---- λάβε, cf. v. 7. 
John is to take this book to himself (ver. 9). ---- αἀπῆλθα πρὸς τὸν dyy. How 
John, who continues to have his standpoint in heaven (cf. ver. 1), could 
go to the angel who stands on the earth and sea, is not made perceptible 
to sober view, because in the vision the question is only concerning the act 
of going. But even if one, like De Wette, consider that John, even prior 
to ch. x., “had occupied the standpoint of Zechariah, Ezekiel, and Daniel,” 
the difficulty of the ἀπῆλθα remains essentially the same; hence De Wette 
has properly reached no conclusion from this expression concerning the 
standpoint of John. —doivaz. Concerning this inf.,? dependent on the λέγων, 
οἵ. Winer, p. 296. —kardgaye aito. The eating of the book?* is within the 
entire visionary scene not to be regarded an expression intended allegorical- 
ly, but as a real act of John; just as Ezekiel (ii. 9 sqq.) by eating a book 
receives the contents of its prophetic discourses. The meaning of the 
visionary fact is correctly given already by Beda: “Take into your inward 
parts, and contain within the space of thy heart.” What Jer. xv. 16 in 
figurative language calls an eating of the words of divine revelation, which 
must be converted by the prophet into marrow and blood,® we find here, as 
in Ezekiel, represented in an actual visionary transaction.® — καὶ πικρανεῖ ---- 
μέλι. From the fact that the angel speaks first of the bitter effect and then 
of the sweet taste of the little book, but John himself (ver. 10) the reverse, 
it does not follow that “both vigorously struggled for priority.”7 Accord- 


dence at Jerusalem, and the free worship of 4 Cf. ver. 10, where the command is fulfilled 
God and Christ there.” by John. 

1 See Critical Notes. 5 Cf., besides, Ps. xl. 9. 

2 Cf. the ἦλθε, v. 7; also the ἔρχου, vi. 4, 5, 7. 6 Ew., ete. Cf. Knobel, Proph., I. p. 373. 


3 Acts xxi. 21. 7 Hengstenb. 


CHAP. X. 8-11. 7 305 


ing to the context, the “priority” belongs — not only as to order, but also 
as to minor dignity —to the sweetness, because the book comes first into 
the mouth and last into the belly. According to this most simple order, 
John himself reports, ver. 10. The angel looks at it differently, since he 
speaks, —as the combination of the two expressions into one antithesis 
shows, — not according to the mere consequences, but with respect to the 
inner nature and effect. The angel intends first to prepare John for the 
bitter effect, but then he also says that the book will be in his mouth 
sweet as honey. This is also against Beng., who, by a comparison of vv. 
9 and 10, immediately infers two kinds of sweetness, one before and one 
after the bitterness. — The relation of πικρανεῖ cov τὴν κοιλίαν (ἐπικράνθη ἡ κοιλ. 
u., ver. 10, cf. vill. 11) and γλυκὺ ὡς μέλι is, in accordance with the context, 
to be determined according to both norms: that one and the same book 
is sweet and bitter according as it enters the mouth or the belly; then, 
that the distinction between the mouth and the belly is understood only 
with reference to the eating. Incorrect, therefore, are both the explanation 
which refers the sweetness and bitterness to the difference between the joyful 
and the sad contents of the book,!1—#in connection with which a further 
error is readily intruded, that, with a result contrary to the context, speaks 
of “ bitter-sweet ” contents, indicating that only after a sad visitation could 
glorious joy enter;? and also that which —in connection with a false inter- 
pretation of the little book itself, of the πάλιν προφητ., ver. 11, yea even of 
the angel, vv. 1, 8—regards the mouth of John not as the organ of eating 
(receiving), but of speaking, and then refers the bitterness to the persecu- 
tions and all the hinderances with which the evangelical preaching of John 
or the entire Church met. With correctness, Vitr.,C. a Lap., De Wette, 
Stern, Hengstenb., etc., have interpreted, that, as the mouth refers to the 
receiving of the revelation given in the little book, so the κοιλία ---- not καρδία, 
as Cod. A reads, and Andr. explains, disturbing the clearness of the idea of 
the text by mingling therewith a rash interpretation —is directed to the 
comprehension, i.e., the further scrutiny * and perception, of the revelation 
received. [See Note LXVI., p. 309.] How little the sweetness of the 
reception, as such, was hindered by the bitterness of the contents of revela- 
tion, is shown by the symbol of Ezekiel, in whose mouth the book written 
with mourning and woe is ὡς μέλι γλυκάζον5 But he also went bitterly, after 
he had filled his belly therewith,® in the heat of his spirit.7 — By eating the 
book, John is made able to proclaim its contents. Therefore ver. 11 follows: 
καὶ λέγουσίν μοι, x.t.A. The plur.§ makes the speaking subject entirely indefi- 
nite; the modified var. points to the angel. —dei ce πάλιν προφ. The dei 
designates not the inner, subjective necessity, that John now cannot help 
prophesying, because by eating the book he has been capacitated for prophe- 
sying,® but the objective necessity depending upon the will of God, who 


1 Heinr., Ewald. 6 Ver. 3: ἡ κοιλία cov πλησθήσεται. 

2 Herd., Rinck. 7 Ver. 14: 72, which the LXX. do not at 
8 Beda, Aret., Par., etc. all translate. ᾿ 

‘ Cf. 1 Pet. i. 10 sq. 8 Cf. xii. 6. 


5 Ezek. iii. 3; cf. ii. 10. 9 Beng., Hengstenb. 


306 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


accordingly gives his revelation. The πάλιν does not contrast John’s 
prophecy with that of the ancient prophets,? but designates a second zpody- 
τεῦσαι Of John himself, yet not a preaching after a return from exile,? but 
the new prophecy for which the eaten book has fitted him in its relation to 
the prophesying practised upon the ground of previous visions. This πάλιν 
προφητεῦσαι occurs therefore in the succeeding part of the Apoc.4— ἐπὶ λαοῖς 
- πολλοῖς. Incorrectly, Beng: “To nations— beyond,” in the sense that 
there are still many nations, etc., which are, meantime, to come before that 
is fulfilled which is here described prior to the transition to the second woe. 
Ἐπί has this meaning neither in Heb. ix. 17, 1 Cor. xiv. 26, nor el8ewhere. 
Likewise incorrectly, Ebrard: “Before nations,” i.e., so that “the nations 
have it declared to them.” The ἐπὶ with the dat. designates, precisely as 
in John xii. 16, the object which the prophecy grasps, i.e., concerning which 
the prophecy is made. The grammatical relation is precisely the same as 
in the construction of ἐπέ with the dative accompanying verbs designating 
joy, astonishment, etc., concerning any thing.® The occasion for the false 
construction of the ἐπὶ lies, in Ebrard, in the view of the contents of the book, 
and the range of the prophecy conditioned thereby. If the πάλιν προφητεῦσαι 
is completed with xi. 13, and is intended for the Church, it cannot be said 
here, ver. 11, that John is to prophesy concerning nations and kings; and if 
Hengstenb., who likewise ® finds in xi. 1-13 the prophecy announced in ver. 
11, and refers it to the degenerate churches, yet explains correctly the én 
Aaoic, «.7.A., and compares therewith what is said of kings, chs. xvi., xvii., xix., 
this is inconsistent with his view of the little book and the πάλ. zpod., just to 
the extent that it is correct according to the context. Ewald — who agrees 
formally with Hengstenb. and Ebrard, since he also finds in xi. 1-13 the 
contents of the eaten book, but interprets this new prophecy as referring to 
the destruction of Jerusalem —refers the én? λαοῖς, «.7.A., to xi. 2, 7,9; but 
since the prophecy xi. 1-13 is actually one concerning Jerusalem, it cannot 
well be called at x. 11 a prophecy concerning peoples, nations, languages, 
and many kings.?. Besides, Ew. has understood the significant position of 
the angel, ver. 2, with relation to Rome as capital of the world. The 
result, therefore, is not that the ἐπὶ is explained ungrammatically, but that 
we must seek the correct reference of the πάλιν προφητεῦσαι, which must con- 
cur with the correct view of the contents of the little book eaten. Upon this 
depends the ultimate determination of the view of the entire transaction 
1 ὉΠ πὶ ; 

The allegorical explanations are to be rejected, as entirely in violation 
of the context, which betray their arbitrariness by their infinite diversity. 
The mighty angel, ver. 1, can as little stand for the Emperor Justin, the 
defender of the Church against the Arians, and the Emperor Justinian,® 


1 Cf., in general, i. 1 sqq. 2 Beng. 5 Winer, p. 368. 

3 Primas, Beda, Vieg. 6 Cf. also Klief. 

4 Grot., Alcas., De Wette, Hengstenb., 7 j.e., all the world, those κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ 
Ebrard, etc., who, in the more accurate deter- τῆς γῆς. Cf. v. 9. 
mination, vary much in other respects from 8 Ver. 8. N. de Lyra. 


one another. 


CHAP. X. 8-11. 307 


or! the evangelical preachers, as whose representative others, like Beda 
already, understand John, or indeed the Pope,? as the little book eaten by 
John can be the Codex ‘Justinianus,® or the N. T.4. The most important 
interpreters ὅ are unanimous in regarding the contents of this little book, 
which is eaten, as prophecy which is written in the Apoc. itself, and 
that, too, in the part which follows ch. x. But there is controversy both 
as to the more accurate determination of the section which is regarded as 
containing the prophecy proceeding from the book that is eaten,'‘and also, 
which is essentially connected therewith, as to the relation between the 
book that is eaten, and the seal-book, ch. v. The opinion that both books 
are identical® is answered already by the fact that John, after having thus 
far prophesied upon the ground of the book of ch. v., now is to prophesy 
anew upon the ground of the little book that is eaten. Accordingly, the 
directly opposite view is readily suggested, that both books have nothing 
whatever to do with one another, but that the little book, ch. x., contains 
something entirely peculiar, viz., what is described in xi. 1-13: i.e., ac- 
cording to Grot., Wetst., Eichh., Ew., the fate of Jerusalem; according to 
Hengstenb., the fate of the degenerate Church.7 But it is neither correct 
that the contents of the book of fate, ch. v., are already fully settled in 
what has been hitherto given,’ nor is it conceivable that that book of fate 
should contain nothing of the fate of Jerusalem, the “ degenerate Church,” 9 
which is not to be revealed to the prophet until by the little book, ch. χ.; 19 
neither, if the contents of the book that is eaten be limited to xi. 1-13, 
whether in Ewald’s or Hengstenb.’s sense, does it agree with the statement of 
ver. 11, according to which John is to prophesy concerning peoples and 
many kings. The instance deduced from ver. 111! applies also against Vitr., 
who, in the little book of ch. x., finds a part of the book of ch. v., limits its 
contents likewise to xi. 1-13, and interprets it as a prophecy concerning the 
calamities of the Western Church. The correct point in Vitr. is the view 
that the little book of ch. x. comprises a part of all that which is to happen 
contained in the book of fate of ch. v.; viz., all that which has not, as yet, 
issued from the book of fate through the succession of seal- and trumpet- 
visions; in other words, all that from xi. 1 has been written by John in 
consequence of the dei ce πάλιν προφητεῦσαι, x.7.A.;12 therefore not in the false 
sense 13 that “the book of completion ” only substantially repeats, in its way, 
the contents already present in the preceding “book of declaration.” This 
follows from what in x. 11 is said concerning the prophecy of John, which 
proceeds from the book which was eaten; but it admits the less a restriction 
to xi. 1-13 (where what is said is concerning Jerusalem), and rather re- 
quires the more certainly the further reference to what is written, ch. xii. 


1 According to the older Protestant expos- 6 C. a Lap., Zeger, Calov. 
itors. 7 Cf. also Ebrard. 

2 Luther. 8 Against Hengstenb. 

3 N. de Lyra. 9 Hengstenb. 

4 Aret., etc. 10 Against Ewald, etc. 

5 C. a Lap., Grot., Calov., Vitr., Beng., 11 Cf. ver. 6 sqq. 


Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 12 Beng., De Wette. 13 Volkm. 


308 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


sqq., as the discourse of the angel, x. 6 sq., extending to the full end, stands 
in more significant parallel with the contents of the book brought by him. 
For it also agrees with this, that the πάλιν προφητεῦσαι of John in no way 
stands out of connection with the book of fate including of itself the entire 
prophecy concerning what was to occur; but rather not only does xi. 1-13 
belong in the series of the woes, but also all that froni xi. 15 succeeds the 
trumpets, which by means of the seals, from the last of which they have 
proceeded, belongs to the sphere of the book of fate. And when the angel, 
who brings the little book, looks towards Jerusalem, ver. 2, it agrees with 
this, that the most immediate object of the new prophecy, ver. 11, is in fact 
Jerusalem (xi. 1 sq.); but the perspective opened, ver. 7, extends to the 
ultimate end; so that from the little book, in the fulness corresponding to 
ver. 11, there follow also the prophecies of ch. xii. sqq. Thus the little 
book which was brought to John opened, and was eaten by him, appears to 
be an inner instruction and interpretation given the seer concerning visions 
still impending, and which are to continue until the full end. And the 
more important the subjects of the prophecy that now follow, —for we 
come now to the proper goal, while all that precedes is only preparatory, — 
the more natural appears the new special preparation of the prophet. | 


ΝΟΤΕΒ BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LXIII. Ver. 1. ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν. 


Alford: ‘‘This angel is not, and cannot be, our Lord himself. Such a 
supposition would, it seems to me, entirely break through the consistency of 
apocalyptic analogy. Throughout the book, angels are the ministers of the 
Divine purposes, and the carriers-out of the apocalyptic course of procedure, 
but are everywhere distinct from the Divine Persons themselves., In order to 
this their ministry, they are invested with such symbols and delegated attributes 
as beseem in each case the particular object in view; but no apparent fitness of 
such symbolical investiture to the Divine character should induce us to break 
through the distinction, and introduce indistinctness and confusion into the 
book. When St. John means to indicate the Son of God, he indicates him 
plainly ; none more so. When these plain indications are absent, and I find 
the name ἄγγελος used, I must take leave to regard the agent as distinct from 
him, — however clothed, for the purpose of the particular vision, with his 
delegated power and attributes.”’ 


LXIV. Ver. 3. μυκῶται, 


The application of the word to thunder is very forcibly illustrated by the 
μύκημα in Aischylus, Prometheus, 1062: — 


* un φρένας ὑμῶν ἠλιθιώσῃ 
βροντῆς μύκημ᾽ ἀτέραμνον." 


‘* Quickly from hence depart, 
Lest the relentless roar 
Of thunder stun your soul.’? — PLUMPTRE’s Translation. 


NOTES. 309 


LXV. Ver. 6. χρόνος οὐκέτι ἔσται. 


Stier: ‘‘ The Greek word χρόνος applies equally to a long interval, a respite, 
a delay, a postponement; and we have already had several instances in which 
it has been so used, as, for instance, in ch. ii. 21, where we find it rendered 
‘space to repent;’ and ch. vi. 11, where it stands fora further period of rest 
and expectation. Therefore the meaning is simply this: that, whereas the 
angel with the seal demands an interval of time before the opening of the 
seventh seal, which interval is to be employed in sealing the servants of God, 
so this angel, on the contrary, denies any further space for repentance, any 
respite for the ungodly, before the sounding of the seventh trumpet. He 
affirms that stroke is to succeed stroke, and that, in a certain limited period, all 
will be finished.’’ So, also, Beck, who, in illustration of this meaning of χρόνος, 
refers to its derivative χρονίζειν: Matt. xxiv. 48, ‘‘ My lord delayeth his coming;”’ 
xxv. 5, ‘‘ while the bridegroom tarried ;’’ Heb. x. 37, ‘‘ He that shall come will 
come, and will not tarry.” ‘Space of time” is the uniform meaning of χρόνος 
both in the Apocalypse (ii. 21, vi. 11, x. 6, xx. 3) and the Gospel of St. John 
(v. 6, vii. 33, xii. 35, xiv. 9). 


LXVI. Ver. 9. ποικρανεῖ τὴν κοιλίαν. 


J. Gerhard (quoted by Calov.): “‘The pleasure of the mouth is a symbol of 
the pleasure which the godly derive from the revelation of divine mysteries 
before they fully perceive them. The dolor ventris is a symbol of the pain 
which they derive from the consideration of the persecution to be described in 
the succeeding prophecy, which antichrist will exercise against the Church at 
the end of the world.”? Primasius: ‘‘ When you have received it, you will be 
delighted by the sweetness of the Divine speech (Ps. xix. 15), the hope of 
promised salvation, and the charm of Divine justice. But you will experience 
the bitterness when this is to be preached to both devout and undevout.’’ Stier: 
**The evangelizing to the prophets must always have been fraught with a 
certain degree of bitterness to human nature.’’ Luthardt: ‘‘ Bitter poison to 
the belly, i.e., to man so far as he belongs to this transitory world (cf. 1 Cor. vi. 
13); but so far as he is God’s, it is sweet joy (cf. Ps. xix. 11), for it is a word of 
judgment to the world, but redemption to the Church, which, with its mouth, 
preaches God.”’ 


310 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


CHAPTER XI. 


Ver. 1. The interpolation καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος εἱστῆκει before λέγων (Elz.) is without 
all attestation. — ἔγειρε. So Lach., Tisch., in accordance with A, &, 6, 7, al. 
Besides the var. ἔγειραι (Elz.), ἔγειρον also occurs (cf. Wetst.); both as an 
interpretation. — Ver. 4. ἑστῶτες. So A, Ὁ, &,, 2, 4, 6, al., Beng., Matth., 
Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Without witnesses is the correction ἑστῶσαι (E]z.). 
—Ver. 5. θέλει. Only twice is the more grammatical, and therefore more 
suspicious, form θελήσῃ (Elz., Tisch. IX. |W. and H.]) found, viz., in A, δὲ; the 
first θέλῃ (Elz.) is entirely unwarranted. Properly Beng. already wrote θέλει 
both times. — Ver. 6. The decision as to whether, after a relatively compounded 
form like ὁσάκις, either ἐᾶν (so here Elz., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], in accord- 
ance with A, &) or ἄν (as C actually has it) is to be written, does not depend 
upon critical testimonies concerning a particular passage; cf. my notes on 1 
John iii. 20.— Ver. 8. For ἡμῶν after κύριος (Elz.), Beng. already, in accordance 
with all the witnesses, substituted αὐτῶν. ---- Ver.9. ἀφίουσιν. So A, C, κα, 12, 28, 
Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], instead of the emendation ἀφήσουσιν (Elz., Beng., 
Griesb., Matth.). — Ver. 10. εὐφραίνονται, So A, C, &, 12, 28, Lach., Tisch. [W. 
and H.]. Modified, Elz.: εὐφρανθήσονται (Vulg.). — Ver. 11. ἐν αὐτοῖς. Correctly 
accepted by Lach., Tisch., from A, 18. Only for the purpose of avoiding 
harshness of construction with εἰσῆλθεν is it written: αὐτοῖς (C, 7, 17, Erasm., 1, 
2, 3, Beng.), ex’ αὐτούς (Elz.), εἰς αὐτούς (8, 2, 4, 6, al.). The var. ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὶς (12) 
indicates what is correct. — Ver. 12. The reading ἤκουσα (Beng., Tisch.), sup- 
ported by & corr., 4, 6, 8, 9, al., Syr., Copt., Andr., al., deserves the preference 
to the certainly well-attested ἤκουσαν (Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]). See 
exposition. — Ver. 16. The art. of is lacking before εἴκ. τεσσ, πρεσβ. in A, Ὁ, δὲ, 
Lach., and before ἐν 7. θ. καθ. in A, Lach. But, in the second place, the art. 
which, because of the retrospection to iv. 4, 11, especially cannot be absent in 
the first place, is to be recognized besides in the paraphrase ot — κάθηνται (Ὁ, 3, 
4, al., Tisch. IX.). The omission also can be accounted for because of the 
similarity of the preceding syllable. Tisch. is right in supporting the rec., 
which has the article in both places. — Ver. 18. Instead of the dat., Lach. 
(small ed.) has written the accus. from τοὺς ἁγίους until τοὺς μεγάλους, of course 
according to A. But in his larger edition he has altered the reading, because C 
(also δὲ.) offers only the two accusatives τοὺς μιίκρ. καὶ τοὺς wey. But the entirely 
senseless acc. can have its origin only in a slip in the MSS., which was occa- 
sioned possibly by the succeeding accus. — Ver. 19. The ὁ before ἐν τ. ovp., which 
is lacking in &, Elz., Tisch. 1854, is found in A, C, 14 (Lach., Tisch. 1859 and 
IX. [W. and H.]). 


The first part of the chapter, extending until ver. 14, ---- with which the 
chapter would more properly end, because the second part (ver. 15 sqq.) 
belongs throughout to ch. xii. sqq., —— contains the first manifestation of the 
πάλιν προφητεῦσαι, Which was committed to John at the close of ch. x. The 


CHAP. XI. 1. 311 


present προφητεία, moreover, is opened with the description of a significant 
act which John must perform in the vision — just as the ancient prophets, 
by significant acts, prophesied to the people.1_ With a measuring reed he 
must measure the temple, but not its outer court; for, as the heavenly voice 
immediately afterwards signifies, this is given to the heathen, who are for 
forty-two months (vv. 1, 2) to tread down the holy city. During this time 
—so further sounds the heavenly voice, from whose report John afterwards 
passes to his own prophetic discourse, ver. 11—two witnesses of Christ 
shall come forth as preachers of repentance, who, only after the completion 
of their testimony, shall be slain by the beast out of the abyss, and that, too, 
in Jerusalem, where, to the joy of the godless world, their unburied corpses 
shall lie exposed to view in the street (vv. 83-10). But after three days and 
a half these witnesses shall be revived by God, to the terror of their enemies, 
before whose eyes they shall be raised to heaven (vy. 11,12). <A mighty 
earthquake then destroys a tenth of the city, and kills seven thousand inhab- 
itants; the survivors are converted (ver. 13). — With this the second woe? 
is at an end; the third cometh quickly. 

Ver. 1. Kai ἐδόθη wo. By whom, remains just as undetermined as viii. θ᾽ 
vi. 11. De Wette, Ew. 11., think of the angel of ch. x., who, however, has 
fulfilled there that to which he was called; Beng.® refers it to Christ, but 
to this, ver. 3 (uapr. μου) does not constrain. — κάλαμος ὅμοιος ῥάβδῳ. That a 
reed serves as a μέτρον, is to a certain extent explained as to its form, by its 
resemblance to a rule. —A¢ywv, without construction, as iv. 1. Of course, 
the giver of the κάλαμος is meant; but it is incorrect, if one, as even Beng., 
regard the κάλαμος as the formally determined subject, and then by metonymy 
reaches its giver. — ἔγειρε καὶ μέτρησον. From the ἔγειρε it does not follow, that 
previously John was “in another posture of body,”® perhaps kneeling; the 
ἔγειρε ---- otherwise than in Mark v. 41; John v. 8; Luke v. 23 — correspond- 
ing to the Heb. O1),° is only excitatory with respect to the closely connected 
καὶ perp." — It is not the purpose of the measuring, as the antithesis in ver. 2 
undoubtedly shows, to make visible the relations of space, which, besides, is 
not conceivable in the measuring of the προσκυνοῦντες, ---- as in Ezek. xl. 1 sqq. 
the temple-building beheld by the prophet in its completion was measured 
in all its parts, because he is to learn its dimensions accurately, — but just 
as in Am. vii. 7° that is measured which was destroyed, with respect to 
what is to be exempted from destruction, so John must here measure what 
is mentioned in ver. 1, because this is to be exempted from the destruction 
to which what is not measured (ver. 2) is abandoned, and is therefore to be 
preserved. In this formal understanding, Grot., Eichh., Ew., De Wette, 
Liicke, Hengstenb., etc., agree, much as they diverge from one another in 


11 Kings xxii. 11; Isa. xx. 2; Jer. xix. 1 5 Beng. 
sqq. Cf. also Acts xxi. 11. Knobel, Proph., 6 Num. x. 35; LXX.: ἐξεγέρθεις. Pa. iii. 8; 
i. 420 sqq. LXX.: ἀνάστα. Mic. vi. 1; LXX.: ἀνάστηθι. 
2 Cf. ix. 13 sqq. 7 Cf. Ew., De Wette, etc. 
3 Cf. also Ew. ὃ Cf. Rev. xxi. 15 sqq.; also Zech. ii. 5 sqq. 


4 Cf. Ezek. xl. 3: M94 ΤΡ; DP. @. ae is similar. 
κάλαμος μέτρον. Cf. Rev. xxi. 15. j 9 Cf. Hab. iv. 6. 


9512 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


its more detailed interpretation. It is, therefore, incorrect to find the inten- 
tion of the new building in the measuring; whether in Bengel’s sense, who 
here finds a confirmation of Ezek. xl., viz., the prophecy of the building of 
the temple of Ezekiel at Jerusalem actually to occur at the end of days ; or 
in the sense of the .allegorists, who understand the ναὸς τ. 9. of the true 
Church of Christ, and refer to its glorious new building, in connection with 
which the old Protestant expositors! regard the destruction of that which 
was consecrated (vv. 2, 13), as the Roman-Catholic degeneration, Jerusalem 
(ver. 8) as papal Rome; while the Catholics have in view the removal of 
the O. T. sanctuary, and the separation of wicked members of the Church, | 
ver. 2.2 See in general on ver. 19. --- τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ. That part of the 
entire ἑερόν which contained the holy of holies, the holy place, and the 
porch; the proper temple-building,® in distinction from the entire space 
of the outer courts, cf. ver. 2. Incorrectly, Weiss: 4 “The congregation of 
believing Jews.” — τὸ θυσιαστῇριον. Only the altar of incense can be meant ; 
since only this, and not the altar of sacrifice,® stood in the vadc.6 For the 
argument of Hengstenb., that the ναός itself is to be understood figura- 
tively of the Christian Church, because here the altar of incense in the same 
is removed, there is no occasion. But, also, on the other side, the argument 
of De Wette is unsuitable, that in vi. 9, viii. 8, what is said pertains not to 
the altar of sacrifice, which does not occur at all in the Apoc., but to the 
altar of incense; for since the ναὸς τ. 6. (ver. 1) is different from the ναὸς τ. θ. 
ὁ ἐν τ. οὐρανῷ (ver. 19), just so little has the θυσιαστήριον (ver. 1) to do with the 
heavenly altar, viii. 3, vi. 9.— καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν αὐτῷ, ViZ., τῷ va@. Vitr. 
refers αὐτῷ to θυσιαστ., and explains the ἐν by apud, since he interprets τ. 
mpooxuv. by metonymy:7 “the place in which the people were accustomed to 
adore God,” and thus finally derives “the court of the Israelites.” To this 
view, conflicting with the idea of the ναός, and with ver. 2, — which, besides, 
appears entirely confused by the fact that Vitr.* understands by the 6vovaor, 
properly Christ, — he comes in order not to be compelled to conceive of the 
προσκυνοῦντες in the ναός, and at the altar found therein as exclusively priests, 
of whom many of the older Catholics, as C. a Lap, alone think. But as cer- 
tainly as also the ναὸς τ. 6. is to be sought in Jerusalem (ver. 8), and the 
whole chapter is to be referred to the impending destruction of the city,® just 
so certainly does the position of those προσκυνοῦντες in the ναός itself appear 
as one of the ideal features, which explain the whole prophecy, and extend 
it to the sphere of a mere foretelling of a future event. That John beholds 
true believers from Israel transferred to the ναὸς τ. 6., otherwise standing 
open only to priests, is interposed because of his knowledge of the priestly 
character of all believers, Jews and Gentiles.!° But as in ch. vii. he reports 
the sealing of believers out of Israel, as a necessary preparation for the 
judgment impending over Israel; so here, where the judgment breaks upon 


1 Par., Vitr., etc. 6 Hichh., Heinr., De Wette, Stern, Ebrard. 


2 Ὁ. ἃ Lap., Stern. ° 7 Cf. also Grot. 
3 Matt. xxiii. 35, xxvii. 51. 8 Cf. Zeg., etc. 
4 Stud. u. Krit., 1869, p. 30. 9 See on ver. 138. 


5 Grot., Vitr., Hengstenb. 20 3,6, v.10. Cf. also vii. 15. 


CHAP. XI. 2,3. 313 


Israel those believers together with the proper dwelling of God are measured, 
just as he protects the ναὸς τ. 6. before its sinking in judgment.1_ [See Note 
LXVIL., p. 332.] 

Ver. 2. Kai τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔξωθεν, «7.2. Incorrectly, Luther: “The inner 
choir,” after a bad variation. Also Vitr., Ewald,? Ziill., object not only to 
the expression, but also to what was said in ver. 1, since they conceive of 
τ. αὐλ. τὴν ἔξωθεν tot ναοῦ in the sense of τ. αὐλ. τὴν ἐξωτέραν τ. v., and distinguish ὃ 
an outer and an inner court, the latter of which, as belonging to the ναός, is 
measured with it. But the expression ἔξωθ. τ. ¢.4 confirms rather the idea 
given, ver. 1, of the ναός alone to be measured, i.e., the proper temple-build- 
ing, outside of which the αὐλῆ, 1.e., the entire space of the court, lies.5 Arbi- 
trarily, the αὐλῇ is interpreted by Weiss: “the congregation of unbelieving 
Jews.” — ἔκβαλε tw. The casting out, viz., beyond the reach of that which is 
to be measured, is determined, according to the sense as well as the form of 
the idea, by the parallel addition, καὶ μὴ αὐτὴν μετρήσῃς ; 5 yet in the signifi- 
cant expression’ the point must not be overlooked, which Eichh. alone, and 
without the textual reference to the boundaries of the space to be measured, 
in his unhappy paraphrase makes equivalent to “declare profane.” §— ὅτι 
ἐδόθη τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, for it is given to the Gentiles, viz., by the Divine decree; as 
the immediately following fut. πατήσουσι, which describes the impending ful- 
filment of this decree, unambiguously declares. Entirely in violation of the 
context, Beng. remarks that the Gentiles, on account of whose immensity, 
i.e., innumerableness,? the outer court shall not be measured, shall at one 
day worship there. Improper also is the mingling of the idea, that the 
bloody sacrificial service at the altar of burnt offerings is not to be main- 
tained : 19 it is intended by this, only that according to the Divine decree, 
the Gentiles shall tread (πατῆσουσι, Luke xxi. 24) the court and the entire 
holy city.14 Allied with this is the determination of the καιροὶ ἐθνῶν by the 
schematic temporal specification: μῆνας τεσσαράκοντα καὶ δύο, 1.6., 34 years,” 
according to the type of the treading down of the holy city and the sanctuary 
by Antiochus Epiphanes. | 

Ver. 3. κ. δώσω τοῖς δυσὶν μάρτυσίν pov. The object of δώσω follows here, 
not in the form of the infin.,!? but is described, according to the Hebrew way, 
in the succeeding clause, καὶ προφητ. Formally and materially incorrect are 
the additions to δώσω, “ constancy and wisdom,” }* “the holy city,” 15 which 
are expressly rejected already by Vitr. Unnecessarily, although in fact not 
unsuitably, De Wette supplies “ direction and power.’’ — The art. τοῖς allows 
us to think only of two definite witnesses, otherwise known already, who, as 
the entire description until ver. 12 establishes, are personal individuals, but 


1 Cf. also De Wette, Liicke (p. 354). 8 Cf. Vitr.: “ Excommunicate.” 
2 Cf. Gott., Gel. Anz., 1861, p. 1013. 9 vii. 4, 9. 
3 Cf. Ezek. xl. 17 sqq. 10 Against De Wette, etc. 
4 Cf. xiv. 20; Mark vii. 15. 11 Cf. Matt. iv. 5. 
5 De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 12 = 34 καιροί, Dan. vii. 25, xii. 7; Rev. xii. 
6 Beng., Ewald, De Wette, Hengstenb., 14. 
Ebrard. 13 As vi. 4, vii. 2. 


7 Cf. Matt. viii. 12; John ix. 34 sqq., xii. 31; 14 N. de Lyra, C. a Lap. 
3 John 10. 15 Beza. 


314 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


not “allegories of potencies.”1 The witnesses are meant? to be witnesses 
of Christ (μάρτ. pov),? which accordingly is understood in general of itself, 
because, as all true προφητεία proceeds from Christ,* so also is it actually 
directed to Christ;® but here it is especially applicable, because the witnesses 
come forth as preachers of repentance during an essentially Messianic visita- 
tion of judgment, and, besides, have to suffer from the same hostility as that 
by which the Lord himself is brought to the cross, ver. 8. But from this it 
does not follow ὃ that Christ himself is to be regarded as speaking ;7 but the 
heavenly voice 8 speaks only in Christ’s name. — ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα. 
The specification of the forty-two months, ver. 2, after the days, shows that 
daily, during this whole time, the prophetie speech of the two witnesses is 
heard. — περιβ. cixxouc. They are thus, above all things, preachers of repent- 
ance; for the penitential garb,® which they themselves have adopted,?° puts 
before the eyes of the hearers what the prophetic testimony demands. 

Ver. 4. The two witnesses of Christ (ver. 3) are further characterized in 
their nature and calling, and that, too, from Zech. iv.; for the definite art., 
ai δύο ἐλ., ai δύο Avyv., points back to this, as the entire verse is based upon the 
sense and expression of Zech. iv. There Zech. beholds a golden candlestick 
with seven lamps, the symbol of the Church of God, besides two olive-trees, 
to the right and left of the candlestick, which receives from them its oil. 
The two ἐλαῖαι (LXX.) designate, besides the λυχνία, “two anointed ones that 
stand by the Lord of the whole earth; ” !* viz., the two defenders and guard- 
ians of the theocracy given by God,— Zerubbabel and the high priest 
Joshua; 18 but the symbol represents that only by the Spirit of God, and not 
by man’s own power, the restoration of the kingdom of God can be effected, 
ver. 6. With this symbol of Zech., John agrees when he designates the two 
witnesses of Christ as ai δύο ἐλαῖαι, and as ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου τῆς γῆς ἑστῶτες. 
The latter expression, whose harsh incorrectness (αἱ -- ἑστῶτες) is explicable 
by the reference to the persons represented under the symbols of ἐλαῖαι and 
Avyvia,!4 designates as little as the corresponding words in Zech. the two 
witnesses as representatives of the Church against the world,’ but as ser- 
vants of God,!* who is here called, accordingly, the Lord of the world,!” 
because he shall establish the fact that he is the Almighty, who sends his 
servants into their office, and protects them against all enemies, ver. 5, and 
to the terror of their enemies can glorify 18 the κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, Ver. 10 
sqq. Deviating, however, from Zech., John designates the two witnesses, 
not only as two ἐλαῖαι, but also as two λυχνία. He, of course, derives this 


1 Ebrard, who will in no way concede that 10 Cf. Matt. iii. 4. 11 Cf. Rev. i. 20. 
they are symbols of individuals. 12 LXX.: παρεστήκασι κυρίῳ πάσης γῆς. 

2 Ewald, De Wette, etc. 13 Cf. iii. 1 sqq. 

3 Cf. ver. 8: ὃ κύριος αὐτων. 14 Cf. v.13. Winer, p. 499. 

« Cf. xix. 10. 15 Against Ebrard, who understands the 

SCi oxi yysn-73 Os as the Persian ruler of the 

6 Beng., Hengstenb., Ebrard. world, and accordingly, in this passage, the 

7 Cf., on the other hand, the ὁ xvp, αὐτῶν κύριος τῆς γῆς as ‘the Lord of this world.” 
(ver. 8). 16 Rey. viii. 2. Cf. Isa. vi. 1. 

Β΄. CL xxi. 17 Cf., on the other hand, ver. 13. 


9 Jer. iv. 8; Jon. iii. 5; Matt. xi. 21. 18 Cf, Beng. 


CHAP. XI. 5. 315 


symbolical idea from Zech., but gives it another application; for what is 
said here is neither concerning the kingdom of God in itself, nor its up- 
building through Christ’s two witnesses, but concerning a judgment upon 
“the holy city,” during which the two witnesses preach repentance, and 
that, too, in vain, ver. 7 864. In no respect have the two witnesses aught to 
do with the preservation of the temple.1 The idea of the one λυχνία in 
the sense of Zech. has therefore no place here. But John comprehends the 
symbol of the Avyvia in essentially the same significance as that of the ἐλαῖαι, 
when, precisely in the sense of Zech. iv. 6, he portrays what was just before 
expressed in clear words (δώσω τοῖς μάρτ. μ. καὶ προφητεύσουσιν) ; viz., that the 
efficiency of the two witnesses depends upon the Divine Spirit, not upon 
their own power, and hence becomes truly prophetic. John, therefore, 
describes the prophetic character of the two witnesses of Christ as like those 
two anointed ones in Zech. ; but that he will not express the identity of the 
persons, nor designate the two witnesses as Zerubbabel and Joshua, who 
then must be regarded as repeated, follows partly from the deviation from 
Zech., and partly from other specifications in the context, ver. 3, ver. 5 sqq.? 

Ver. 5 sq. Description of the miraculous power with which the two 
witnesses are furnished in order, until their testimony is finished,? to ward off 
their enemies, and to attest their divine commission. The particular fea- 
tures of the description, viz., ver. 6, are derived from the histories of Elias 
and Moses. Even this retrospective allusion, acknowledged by all expositors, 
to the miracles of those ancient prophets which are in no way understood 
allegorically, of itself renders it in the highest degree improbable that the 
description here is meant to be allegorical; but also the individual expres- 
sions of the text guard against the “spiritual ” interpretation, as it has been 
applied from Primas and Beda to Hengstenb. and Ebrard. — Whether in 
ver. 5 (πῦρ ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτῶν, «.7.A.) there be an allusion to 
2 Kings i. 10 sqq., where Elijah calls down fire from heaven which consumes 
his enemies, remains uncertain; the parallel with Jer. v. 145 is more prob- 
able, but in connection with this the different character of the two passages 
dare not be overlooked. In Jeremiah the words of God are mentioned, and 
how when given in the mouth of the prophet they are like fire; just as it is 
said in Sir. lxvill. 1: ἀνέςτη ἬἭλιας προφήτης ὡς πῦρ, καὶ 6 λόγος αὐτοῦ ὡς λαμπάς 
ἐκαίετο In this passage, however, nothing is said of God’s words coming 
like fire from the mouth of the prophet,’ but only of fire which proceedeth 
from his mouth. What is said in Jer. v. 14, by way of comparison, 
appears here, just as above, ix. 17, in dreadful reality; and that the words 
mip ἐκπορ. ἐκ τ. στόμ. αὐτ. are, nevertheless, meant figuratively, follows from 
their deadly 8 effect described immediately afterwards in the parallel clause, 
which, besides, is expressly referred by the οὕτως to the fire; for this οὕτως 9 


1 Ver.1, wherein many erroneously find the 6 « Then stood up Elias the prophet as fire, 
new building of the Christian Church symbol- πᾶ his word burned like a lamp.” 
ized. 7 Against Beda, N. de Lyra, Aret., Par., 
2 See on ver. 13. 3 Cf. ver. 7 sqq. Calov., Hengstenb., Ebrard. Cf. Grot. : ‘* Their 
4 Ewald, De Wette, ete. prayers excite God’s wrath.” 


5 Beng., Hengstenb., etc. 8 Cf. ix. 18. 9 Cf. Sir. xlviii. 3. 


316 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


says: “ By the fire proceeding out of their mouth; ”! and designates the pun- 
ishment corresponding to the guilt of the θέλειν ἀδικῆσαι.2 But if the zip — 
is understood figuratively, the ἀποκτανθῆναι must then be referred to the fact 
that to unbelievers the gospel is a savor of death unto death; for the ἀδικῆσαι 
must also then be figurative no less than the entire succeeding statement. 
The allegorists are, also, mostly consistent in this, but they arrive at the 
most wonderful interpretations. In the “‘ power to shut heaven, that it rain 
not,” ver. 6, the two witnesses are like Elijah;# even the specification of 
time here corresponds, as the days of their prophetic employment during 
which it is not to rain,* agree, according to ver. 3, with the three and a half 
years during which Elijah kept the heaven shut. The further “ power over 
the waters (ἐπί) ὁ to turn them to blood,” the two witnesses have in common 
with Moses ;* the last words also, καὶ πατάξαι τὴν γῆν ἐν πάσῃ πληγῇ, κ.τ.}., CON- 
tain a retrospective view to the plagues with which Moses smote the Egyp- 
tians,§ although unlimited power is given both witnesses “ to smite the earth 
with all plagues as often as they will.” These decided words once more 
make it manifest in the most definite way, that the issuing of fire from the 
mouth of the witnesses, the closing of the heaven, and the turning of water 
into blood,® are clearly particular plagues of the kind inflicted by Elijah and 
Moses. If we are not to interpret 1 Kings xvii., Jas. v. 17, Exod. vii. sqq., 
allegorically, we must abide also in this passage by the literal sense, yet 
must not deduce therefrom that “the power of the keys” 1909 is here ascribed 
the two witnesses, in virtue of which they close the heaven spiritually, and 
hold back the spiritual rain of the gospel," cause bloodshed to come from the 
gospel,!2 or —if the ὕδατα which are turned into blood be understood as the 
waters out of which the antichristian beast (i.e., the papacy) arises — could 
excite the conflicts between popes and antipopes.48 This kind of consequent 
allegorizing was doubtful already to Grot., who, therefore, tries to escape 
with the vague explanation, “There is nothing so great which they do not 
obtain on asking from God.” 14 

Ver. 7. ὅταν τελέσωσι. “ When they shall have finished.” 1*— τὸ θηρίον τὸ 
avaGaivov ἐκ τῆς dBicouv. Only the infernal nature of the beast is to be 
learned from his rising out of the abyss,!® and his definitely antichristian 
character; further, from his contending against the witnesses of Christ,” and 
overcoming and slaying them. The more detailed explanation of the beast, 
John himself does not give until chs. xiii. and xvii. The mention of the 
beast in this passage is undoubtedly proleptical,!® inasmuch as the concrete 
idea of the antichristian power under the definite form of the beast from 


1 Ew., Ziill. 10 Beda. 
2 Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb. 11 N. de Lyra, Vitr., Calov., Hengstenb., 
3 1 Kings xvii. 1. Ebrard. 
4 Concerning the accus. τὰς ἡμέρας τ, mp. 12 Vitr. 
avt., cf. Winer, p. 215. 18 Cf. Calov. 
5 Jas. v. 17. 14 See on ver. 13. 
6 Cf. vi. 8, where the accus. follows. 15 Cf. Winer, p. 289. 
7 Exod. vii. 19. 16 Cf. ix. 1, 11. 
8 Cf. Exod. viii. 2, 16 sqq., ix. 15, xi. 1. 17 Cf. xiii. 7. 


9 Cf. also viii. 8. 18 De Wette, etc. 


CHAP. XI. 8-10. 317 


the abyss, which is presupposed as known by the definite art. τὸ @np., proceeds 
first from chs. xili., xvii. ; meanwhile, not only is the idea of his Antichris- 
tian nature already to a certain extent intelligible from the entire context, 
but also the form of the description of the beast from the example of Dan. 
vii., to which the interpolation in Cod. A expressly refers. 

Vv. 8-10. As the slaying of the two witnesses could not occur? until 
they had fulfilled their mission, so the Almighty Lord? here allows dishonor 
to be shown their dead bodies, only in order afterwards to glorify them the 
more, ver. 11. —7d πτῶμα αὐτῶν. The sing.’ is regarded collectively ;* “that 
which has fallen of them,” i.e., their corpses. — ἐπὶ τῆς πλατείας τῆς πόλεως τῆς 
μεγάλης. On the street, in the place where in the public exercise of their 
μαρτυρία they are slain, they remain lying unburied, the most ignominious 
outrage even according to the feeling of the Gentiles, who here are repre- 
sented as instruments of the beast of the abyss from the fact that they 
inflict such an outrage upon Christ’s witnesses, ver. 9, and rejoice at this, 
ver. 10.— That “the great city” is identical with the holy city where the 
ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ stands, ver. 1 sqq., and, therefore, is none other than Jerusalem, 
is evident already from the connection; just as unambiguously is this de- 
clared in ver. 8, first in the spiritual! designation of the same as Sodom and 
Egypt, then especially in the words ὅπου καὶ ὁ κύριος αὑτων ἐσταυρώθη. The 
spiritual designation (καλ. πνευματικῶς) expresses, in distinction from the 
proper historical name, the spiritual nature of the city; but the juxtaposi- 
tion of the two names, Sodom and Egypt, shows that reference is not made 
here to individual relations,7 but to that wherein Sodom and Egypt are 
essentially alike, viz., entire enmity to the true God, his servants, and his 
people. As already the ancient prophets called Jerusalem, in express terms, 
Sodom,® or a sister of Sodom,® they wished not so much to characterize 
individual sins, as rather to designate them radically from the perverted 
position of the people to their God. So here the city wherein the witnesses 
of Christ are slain, and lie unburied on the street, and wherein also the Lord 
was crucified, is spiritually designated by both anti-theocratic names, because 
its antichristian hostility to the Lord is to be represented as against his 
witnesses.!° But the pneumatic designation of the city gives also the answer 
in harmony with the context to the question in hand as to why the city is 
called here, not, as ver. 2, the holy, but “the great.” Aret., Calov., and many 
of the older Protestants, have concluded from a comparison with xvi. 19, 
xviii. 15, etc., that also in this passage the great city is nothing but Babel, 
i.e., Papal Rome. Ebrard and other allegorists wish from this designation 
to prove at least that not the actual Jerusalem, but that which is allegor- 
ically meant, i.e., the secularized church, is to be understood. The reply of 
De Wette, that John could no longer call the city holy after its “ profanation,” 


1 Cf., on this idea, the ἐδόθη αὐτῷ (xiii. 7). 7 Against Hengstenb.: ‘* "Avyumtos refers to 
2 Cf. ver. 4. religious corruption, Σόδομα to immoral prac- 
8 Cf. ver. 9, the plural. tices.””’ Otherwise in Vitr., etc. 

4 De Wette. 8 Isa. i. 9 sqq. 

5 Cf. ver. 9. 9 Ezek. xvi. 48. 


6 Cf. Winer, Rwb., i. 172 sq. 10 Cf. Ewald, Bleek, De Wette. 
q 


\ 


318 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


and yet “ wanted to designate it as a chief city containing a large population, 
ver. 13, and at the same time many Gentiles, warriors, and others,” especially 
in its second part, is not properly satisfactory. The reason is more proba- 
ble that it is impossible in one breath to call the city holy, and Sodom and 
Egypt, while the τ. μεγάλης points in like manner as with respect to the city, 
which in ch. xvi. sqq. bears the spiritual name of Babel, to the city’s great- 
ness and power as the vain foundation of its godless security and arrogant 
enmity against the Lord and his witnesses calling to repentance. — That the 
concluding words of ver. 8, ὅπου, κ.τ.λ., dare not be conceived of as a mere 
notice of locality, Ebrard properly mentions ; but from this the impossibility 
does not result that the significance of the πνευματικῶς with καλεῖται extends 
also to the clause ὅπου --- ἐσταυρώθη, as Hengstenb. and Ebrard still assert, as, 
like the old Protestant allegorists, they refer it to the spiritual crucifixion 
of the Lord in the secularized church,! a conception against which already 
the aor. ἐσταυρώθη, pointing to the definite fact of the crucifixion, is arrayed, 
— but only the necessity follows for seeking the correct reference of that 
clause in the pragmatism of the context. Again, the text itself shows this, 
partly by the καὶ before ὁ κύρ. αὐτ., partly by the expression ὁ κύρ. αὐτων. 
Both belong inwardly together ; as the two witnesses, so also their Lord was 
‘ there slain, crucified; the servants have suffered the same thing as their? 
Lord.? This is accordingly made prominent, because from this it becomes 
clear that the antichristian enmity of the great city remains always the 
same; with the same hatred as that wherewith they formerly once brought 
the Lord there to the cross, they now slay -the two witnesses just because 
they are his witnesses. But still in another respect is the allusion to the 
crucifixion of the Lord significant, viz., with respect to the judgment an- 
nounced. For even in their days,* the city shows the same impenitent 
hostility, on account of which the Lord himself already had proclaimed its 
judgment.5 — Ver. 9. The subj. to βλέπουσιν lies directly in the partitively 
formed expression ἐκ τῶν λαῶν, in connection with which a τινὲς is not to be 
supplied. In like manner, the subject is partitively formed, John xvi. 17, 
the object, Matt. xxiii. 834; in the simple gen., without ἐκ, the partitive obj. 
is found; e.g., iii. 9. — From peoples, kindreds, etc. (v. 9), Jews and Gen- 
tiles (cf. ver. 2), many then have assembled in Jerusalem; these see the 
indignity (ver. 8) ἡμέρας τρεῖς καὶ ἡμίσυ, “three days and a half.”*® The sche- 
matic significance of this date can only be mistaken, and a definite chrono- 
logical prophecy be found here, if the specifications of time of vv. 2, 3, also 
be taken literally,? which then of course is ill adapted to the further view 
of the allegorical character, and the reference of the whole to the antichris- 
tian period at the end of the world. All those have felt the schematic 
nature of the three and a half days, who have thought in connection there- 


1 In the Papacy. Calov., etc. 3 Cf. Matt. x. 24 sqq.: Jobn xv. 20. 
2 The reference of the αὐτῶν to the inhabit- 4 Cf. ver. 2 sqq. 

ants of Jerusalem (Ew. 11.) is ingenious, but 5 Cf. Luke xix. 41 sqq. 

violates the pragmatism of the statement, 6 Against Ebrard. 

which also testifies to the pussive form ἐσταυ- 7 Beng., De Wette, etc. 


ρώθη. 8 Accus. of duration, as ver.8. 9 Beng. 


CHAP. XI. 11. 919 
with of only a short time;1 but that just three and a half days are named 
cannot be explained by an allusion to the three days during which the Lord 
lay in the grave;? also not with Ewald: “Longer than it is proper for a 
dead person to be left unburied, especially if we consider that from the 
nature of the land the dead should be buried sooner, so as not to become 
offensive ;” but only from the analogy of the three and a half years, ver. 2 
56. —dgiovx. The form, like the ἥφιεν, Mark i. 34, xi. 16, from the stem 
ἀφίω.  ---- τεθῆναι εἰς μνῆμα. Cf. Luke xxiii. 53, 55; Matt. xxvii. 60.— From 
the fact that in ver. 10 it is said, “ they that dwell upon the earth ” rejoice 
over them,® it has been inferred ὃ that not the actual Jerusalem is to be 
regarded as the scene, but the allegorically so-called great city, Papal Rome, 
or rather the Romish Papacy, which actually extends over the whole earth. 
Improperly; for the strange attempt in this way to present the entire mass 
of all individuals dwelling on earth as spectators would thereby miscarry. 
In the expression of κατοίκ. ἐπὶ τ. y.. the question is not with respect to the 
numerical mass, but the generic idea;7 the self-evident limitation to the 
κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὃ found in the city, as representatives of the entire class, 
the text itself gives by accounting for their joy, to which they testify by 
mutual presents as on festivals,® as follows: ὅτε οὗτοι οἱ δύο προφῆτα!: ἐβασάνισαν 
τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. The ϑασανισμός 1° on the part of the two prophetic 
witnesses, which in no way can be referred to the inner pain?! excited by 
their preaching of repentance,!* was perceptible only to the enemies in the 
city, who just as such represent the entire class of dwellers upon earth. 

Ver. 11. sq. The resuscitation, and ascension to heaven, of the two wit- 
nesses. πνεῦμα ζωῆς, “ A spirit of life.” Cf. Gen. vi. 17, ii, 7.18 Incorrectly, 
Hengstenb. : The spirit of life. — ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. “ Immediately, miraculously.” 14 
“Came” (into them, and remained) “in them.” Cf. 
Luke ix. 46; Winer, p. 385. — καὶ ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας aitwv. The more 
clearly this is meant as a sign of revivification,!® and the more definitely 
it is said, ver. 12, ἀνέβησαν εἰς τ. ovp. ἐν τ. ved., the less is it to be urged that 
here the expression ἐγείρεσθαι or ἀνάστασις is avoided.1® — κ, φόβος μέγας, K.T.A. 
Concerning the expression, cf. Luke i. 12; concerning the thing itself, Matt. 
xxvii. 54. The resuscitation of the witnesses proved that the Lord, in whose 
name they came forth, has the power to avenge the indignity shown his 
servants. — καὶ jxovoa. The reading ἤκουσαν, --- approved also by Ew. ii., — 


-- εἰσῆλθεν ἔν αὐτοις. 


1 Zeg., Hengstenb., etc. ° 

2 C. a Lap., Hengstenb. 

3 De Wette. Cf. also Hengstenb. and 
Ebrard, of whom, however, the latter concurs 
therein with Beng., etc., in that he also under- 
stands the time of antichrist at the end of the 
world, by conceiving of the one thousand two 
hundred and sixty days (ver.3), at whose close 
the three and one-half days (ver. 9) fall, as the 
period of the Church from the destruction of 
Jerusalem until the conversion of Israel before 
the end of the world. 

4 Cf. Winer, p. 77. 

5 ἐπ᾽ avtois; Viz., ΒΟ far as the witnesses 


are slain, and lie ignominiously upon the 
street. 

6 Calov., Vitr., etc. 

7 Cf. vi. 10, iii. 10. 

8 Cf. ver. 9: ἐκ τῶν λαῶν, κ.τ.λ, 

9 Cf. Neh. viii. 10, 12; Esth. ix. 22. Cf. 
Winer, Rwb., i. 482. 

10 jx. 5. 11 Hengstenb. 

12 Beng., Ew., De Wette. ' 

13 Beng., etc. 

14 Beng. 

15 Cf, 2 Kings xiii. 21; Ezek. xxxvii. 10. 

16 Against Ebrard, who finds in this an 
indication of its figurative significance. 


320 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


whereby the same subject is to be understood as in ἀνέβησαν, cannot be 
defended by a comparison with the entirely heterogeneous passage, John v., 
28.1 A declaration directed to the witnesses would be designated after the 
manner of vi. 11.2. The καὶ ἥκουσα properly supported by Beng., Ew. i., De 
Wette, is incomparably more suitable; also in vi. 6, ix. 18, John hears voices 
directed to others, whose consequences he then beholds. The call ἀνάβατε ὧδε ὃ 
finds its fulfilment, immediately afterwards, before the eyes of the enemies: 
καὶ ἀνέβησαν, «.7.2. In this final glorification, the two witnesses are less like 
Elijah,‘ than their Lord himself,> as also their death was expressly compared 
with his crucifixion, ver. 8. 

Ver. 13. At the same time a great earthquake destroys the tenth part of 
the city, slays seven thousand inhabitants, and thus effects the conversion 
of the rest. — ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ, Viz., that in which what is reported in ver. 12 
occurred.® With the glorification of the witnesses coincides the vengeance 
upon their enemies, and those of the Lord. — σεισμὸς μέγας. That the earth- 
quake is intended just as literally as in vi. 12,7 and is not some dreadful 
event to be discerned only from the fulfilment of the prophecy,* and that, 
in general, nothing allegorical is here said, follows from the further descrip- 
tion of the effect of the earthquake; the tenth part of the city is thrown 
down, and seven thousand men (ὀνόματα ἀνθρ.; cf. 111. 4) are slain (ἀπεκτάνθησαν, 
in the same sense as the other plagues).® If the numerical specifications be 
regarded as something else than concrete forms, which by a certain measure 
make perceptible the idea of a relatively small injury,!° we enter the province 
of conjecture. Ebrard wishes to “refer the tenth part of the city to the 
tenth part of the fourth world-power, over which the antichrist is to extend 
his dominion.”1!_ But, as by this arbitrary introduction of a prophecy so 
unlike this as that in ch. xvii., the antichristian character of the number ten 
is inferred, an embarrassment to the text is occasioned, since it designates 
the antichristian men slain by the number seven, a divine number. Yet here 
Ebrard aids with the conjecture, that this number may indicate “the servile 
imitation of divine relations of number on the part of the antichristian 
realm.” --- καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ, «7.2. Upon this large remainder of the inhabitants 
of the city, the Divine visitation is, therefore, not fruitless.}* — ἔδωκαν δόξαν. 
A mark of conversion, xvi. 9; Jer. xiii. 16.183— τῷ θεῷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. The ex- 
pression, derived from the later books of the O. T.,1* occurs in the N. T. only 
here and xvi. 11.45 It is caused here by ver. 13.16 Without further reference, 
De Wette explains it: “the true, supreme God.” But by the very fact that 
God carries his two witnesses to heaven, he shows himself as God of heaven. 


1 Hengstenb.’ 8 Ebrard. 
2 Cf. also ix. 4. . 9» CF. vi. 8, viii. 11, ix. 18. 
8 Cf. iv. 1. 10 Cf, vi. 8, viii. 7 sqq., where the fourth or 
4 2 Kings ti. 11. third are affected by a plague. So Ewald, De 
5 Cf. especially with the ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ (Acts Wette, Liicke. 
1.9): . 11 Dan. vii. 24. Cf. Rev. xvii. 12 sq. 
6 De Wette. 15 Cf., on the other hand, ix. 20. 
7 Cf. also Matt. xxvii. 51, xxviii. 2, where a 13 Beng. 
similar inner connection of the earthquake 14 Ezek. i. 2; Neh. i. 4 βᾳ.; Dan. ii. 18. 
with the death and resurrection of the Lord 15 De Wette. 


occurs. 16 Cf. Beng. 


CHAP. XI. 13. ᾿ 921 


For the comprehension of the entire section, vv. 1-13, the text gives a 
completely secure standpoint by designating “the holy city” in which “the 
temple of God” stands, and which “the Gentiles shall tread under foot,” 
vy. 1,2, by the most unambiguous words as the city “where Christ was 
crucified,” ver. 8. Already what is said in vy. 1, 2, suggests only Jerusa- 
lem; but the words of ver. 8 ὅπου — ἐσταυρώθη, are in themselves so simple, and 
have besides, by means of the historical aor., such immovable firmness in 
their reference to the definite fact of the crucifixion of the Lord, that no 
exposition can correspond with the text that conflicts with the norm given 
by ver. 8 and vv. 1,2. And if the difficulties of exposition from the stand- 
point given by the context—viz., concerning the two witnesses (ver. 3 sqq.), 
and the relation of ver. 13 and vv. 1, 2, to the Lord’s prophecies concerning 
the destruction of Jerusalem — were still greater than they are, without doubt 
the solution of the difficulties can be found only in the way indicated by the 
text itself. Highly characteristic of the force with which the text, espe- 
cially by ver. 8, defends itself against the allegorical interpretation, are the 
concessions of the allegorists themselves. (Οὐ. ἃ Lap allegorizes like the older 
Protestants; but in order to avoid altogether the results of Protestant alle- 
gorizing, which regards the great city as Papal Rome, he mentions that 
ver. 8 allows us to think only of Jerusalem, and, therefore, in no way of 
Rome. Hengstenb., who interprets the entire section (vv. 1-13) allegor- 
ically of the secularized church, opens his observations on ver. 8 with the 
words: “The great city is Jerusalem.” Tinius! does not know how to 
defend the allegorical interpretation as Rome, otherwise than by the con- 
jecture that the contradictory words ὅπου καὶ ὁ κύριος αὑτων ἐσταυρώθη were 
interpolated ! 3 

If by allegorizing, the prophecy be once withdrawn from the firm his- 
torical basis upon which, by ver. 8 and vv. 1, 2,3 it puts itself, every 
limitation whereby the context itself determines the relation of prophecy is 
removed, and a proper refutation of the most arbitrary interpretations is no 
longer possible. How will an old Protestant or a modern allegorist prove 
that the exposition of N. de Lyra is incorrect, when by essentially the same 
allegorizing he infers that vv. 1, 2, were fulfilled when Pope Felix instituted 
the festival of church dedications? For, why should not κάλαμος signify just 
as well a sprinkling-brush as the word of God? And if the ναὸς τοὺ θεοῦ 
mean the true Church, why could not the witnesses coming forth for it be as 
well Pope Silverius and the Patriarch Mennas,? as the “ testes veritatis,” possi- 
sibly the Waldenses, whose testimony in John Hus and Jerome of Prague 
was revived in Luther and Melanchthon?5 Or, upon what exegetical foun- 
dation can it be proved that the beast from the abyss is not the imperial 
general Belisarius,® but the Pope?? The modern allegorists are incon- 
sistent in not expressly adopting the special relations which the allegorical 
interpretation formerly knew how to find in a surprising way. ‘The modern 


1 Die Off. Joh. — Allen verstdndlich ge- 5 Vitr., ete, 6 N. de Lyra. 
macht, Leipz., 1839. 7 Aret., Vitr., etc. 
2 Cf. De Wette. 8 Yet these ancient interpretations are not 


8 Cf. Luke xxi. 24. 4 N. de Lyra. absolutely excluded; now and then they are 


5292 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


allegorists are harmonious with the ancient in the fundamental view of all 
decided points of the entire prophecy: that the temple of God which was 
measured means the true Church which is to be preserved, while the outer 
court and the city given to the heathen are wicked Christians; that Christ’s 
two witnesses, their office, their miraculous powers, their suffering, their 
death, their resurrection and ascension, are to be understood “ spiritually ;” 
finally, that the earthquake (ver. 13) and its effect figuratively represent a 
visitation upon the degenerate Church. Ebrard regards the earthquake as 
a special fact, whose more accurate determination is impossible before the 
fulfilment of the prophecy. In the “spiritual” fundamental view, the Cath- 
olic allegorists, as C. a Lap., Stern, etc., also agree with Par., Vitr., Calov., 
Hengstenb., Ebrard. But differences immediately arise with the more accu- 
rate determinations, in which, however, when once the standpoint designated 
by the context itself is deserted, and the way of allegorizing is entered, the 
ancient Protestants proceed more correctly. The entire description of the 
two witnesses is so thoroughly personal, that it is more in harmony with 
the text to think of “the doctors of the Church,” than of the “office of 
witness,” ? or only of the testifying “potencies,” law and gospel. The 
slaying, the not burying, the awakening of witnesses, refers rather to the 
martyrdom of Savonarola and Ilus, and the resuscitation of such witnesses in 
Luther and the other reformers,* than to the fact that law and gospel are 
regarded dead, and then again maintained.’ Besides, if the dates, seeming 
to correspond so accurately, be taken in the sense of the old interpreters,‘ 
they could please at least by the naive confidence in their consequences; 
while the modern allegorists, by the timidity with which they announce only 
vague generalities, betray their own insecurity and weakness. 

From this form of allegorizing lately arising from a magical idea of fore- 
telling the future, that form is distinguished which has been invented in the 
interest of a rationalistic conception of biblical prophecy, and which is, of 
course, very vigorous with respect to results obtained, but not at all in ex- 
egetical methods. This group of expositors’ has in this the great excellence, 


expressly advanced. Thus Rinck (p. 47) says, 
‘* Constance also is a part of that great city.” 
A consistent return to the ancient Protestant 
allegorizing has been ventured upon again by 
Graber. 

1 Calov., Vitr., etc. 

2 Hengstenb. 

3 Ebrard. 

4 Par., Vitr., Calov., etc. 

5 Ebrard. 

6 The one thousand two hundred and sixty 
days are taken by the older interpreters (‘‘ al- 
most all of our writers” [Calov.]) as equal to 
one thousand two hundred and sixty years. 
Calov. reckons them from the time of Leo the 
Great to about the year 1700, in which a chief 
event bearing upon the overthrow of the degen- 
erate, i.e., of the Romish, Church must occur. 
Cocceius reckons from the end of the third 


century until the treaty of Passau, 1552. 
Gravius (in Calov.) maintains three and one- 
half years, which he reckons from the year 
1625, in which the Papists triumphed, until the 
appearance of Gustavus Adolphus. Bright- 
man understands the three and one-half years 
which the Papists assembled at the Council of 
Trent, used in order to do away with the 
O. and N. T. (the two witnesses). The tenth 
part of the city, i.e., of the Papacy, which is 
overthrown, is, according to Cocceius, Protes- 
tant France; the seven thousand slain are the 
seven provinces which deserted from Spain. 
Most recently Graber again has attempted such 
trifling expedients. The end of the one thou- 
sand two hundred and sixty days, i.e., years, 
he expected in 1859; then the dominion of the 
Turks at Jerusalem would come to an end. 

7 Grot., Wetst., Herd., Eichh., Heinr., etc. 


CHAP. XI. 13. | 823 


that they hold firmly to the textual reference to Jerusalem. Grot., who has 
found already in the preceding visions the destruction of the city by Titus, 
refers (ch. xi.) to the times of Hadrian, who built a temple of Jupiter in 
the city, on the place not measured, — for John, of course, must measure the 
already destroyed temple, “because God was to preserve that space from 
the heathen on account of the memory of its ancient holiness.” — The two 
witnesses are the two assemblies of Christians, a Hebrew and a Greek- 
speaking congregation at Jerusalem; the beast (ver. 7) is Barcocheba; ver. 13 
describes the destruction of his party in the city, against which ver. 15 sqq. 
represents the suppression of the same outside of the. city. According to 
Eichh., the ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ver. 1, designates the worship of the one God, which 
is to be maintained even though the αὐλῇ, i.e., the pomp of ceremonies, be 
surrendered at the impending destruction of the city by Titus, described in 
ver. 15 sqq. The two witnesses are the high-priests Ananus and Jesus,} 
murdered by the Zealots (τοὶς ἔθνεσιν, ver. 2); 3 the earthquake is a scene of 
murder introduced by the Zealots; and the words x. of λοιποὶ, x.7.2., he ex- 
plains: “The good citizens of Jerusalem bore this slaughter with a brave 
mind, having professed this besides, viz., that it had occurred, not without 
God’s knowledge, but by his permission.” 

The neeessity of allegorical exposition, Hengstenb. has attempted to 
prove at length.? Against the fundamental view advocated by Bleek, Ew., 
Liicke, and De Wette, that ch. xi. refers to the still future destruction of 
Jerusalem, — whereby, on the one hand, those expositors maintain the har- 
mouy with the words of the Lord on the subject (cf. ver. 2, πατήσουσιν, with 
Luke xxi. 24), and, on the other hand, explain the difference that in this 
passage the proper ναός is to remain preserved, and, in general, the judgment 
(cf. ver. 13) is far milder than in Luke xxi., Matt. xxiv., by the patriotic 
feeling of John, who was unwilling to conceive of the entire holy city, 
together with the proper habitation of God, as surrendered to the Gentiles, 
Hengstenb. remarks: “ Within the sphere of Holy Scripture, that pseudo- 
patriotism, that blind partiality for one’s own people, is nowhere at home.” 
This is so far entirely inapplicable, since patriotism and pseudo-patriotism 
are two very distinct things. Moses, Jeremiah, all the prophets, have, as true 
patriots, a holy sympathy with their people. Paul especially emphasizes — 
(Rom. ix. 3) the patriotic point of the wish there made. Yea, the bitter- 
ness of the book eaten by John,* Hengstenb. himself has explained by a 
comparison with Ezek. 111. 14, from the sad contents of the prophecy to be 
announced. But if it were bitter to the ancient prophets to announce to 
their own people the Divine judgments, this not only testifies to their holy 
patriotic love, but, besides, makes us see how the entire prophetic character 
was a profoundly moral, and not a magical, overwhelming one, consuming 
the moral personality of the prophet. So also in John. If the prophecy, 
ch. xi. 1-3, according to vv. 1, 2, 8, undoubtedly refers to the actual Jeru- 
salem, so in the bitterness to the prophet,5 with which the judgment is ful- 


1 Cf. Joseph., 8. J., iv. 2 sqq.- besides, Bleek, Stud. u. Krit., 1855, p. 215 
2 So also Herder. 8qq. 
5 Cf., against him, Liicke, p. 825 sqq., and, 4 x.9sqq. 5 x. 9 sq. 


324 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


filled, vv. 1, 2. we must not fail to see genuine patriotism. But it is of 
course unsatisfactory when the difference between the prediction (xi. 1-13) 
and the corresponding fundamental prophecy of the Lord 115 to be explained 
alone by John’s patriotism;? while, more preposterously yet, Hengstenb. goes 
too far on the opposite side in attempting to defend John from pseudo-pat- 
riotism by imputing to him the view that the actual Jerusalem is the congre- 
gation of Satan. Hengstenb. is led to this misunderstanding ® by the zeal 
with which he opposes not so much the view of Liicke, etc., as rather the 
opinion of Baur concerning the gross Judaism of the Apoc. But it is ex- 
tremely incorrect to decide the views of Liicke and of Baur* as the same. 
Just by the false anti-Judaism which Hengstenb. ascribes to John, he breaks 
away the point from his apparently most important arguments for the alle- 
gorical exposition. He says, “John everywhere uses the Jewish only as a 
symbol and form of representation of the Christian; thus, also (ver. 1), he 
designates by the temple the Christian Church, and (ver. 8) by Jerusalem 
the degenerate Christian Church as a whole.” This exegetical canon is just 
as incorrect as that stated in viii. 10, etc., that a star everywhere signifies a 
ruler. Yet, as a matter of course, it must appear already impossible for 
John, if he regards actual Judaism, the temple, the holy city, etc., without 
any thing further, as a congregation of Satan, to use these congregations of 
Satan, with their institutions, as a symbol of the true Church of Christ. 
But Hengstenb. does John the most flagrant injustice. Those who are Jews 
only as they call themselves such, but are the synagogue of Satan, he thor- 
oughly distinguishes—in the sense of Rom. ix. 6—from those who are 
such actually. To the latter belong the sealed out of Jsrael,’ in distinction 
from those out of the Gentiles. Is the name of Israel (vii. 4 sqq.) a symbol 
of the Christian Church? and are the names of the tribes there symbols of 
Christian churches? Hengstenb., especially on xiv. 1 sqq., thinks that the 
constant Jewish symbolism cannot be mistaken, as there Mount Zion can be 
understood only symbolically. That is decidedly incorrect; but, on the other 
hand, the visionary locality where Christ is seen with his hosts is the actual 
Mount Zion, which, as a visionary locality, is as little understood allegorically 
as iv. 1, Heaven; iv. 6, the throne of God; xi. 15, xii. 1, Heaven; xiii. 1, the 
seashore, etc. But when Hengstenb. appeals to xx. 9 in order to prove that 
the “holy city,” xi. 1, 2, is to be understood allegorically, he does something 
awkward, because the entire statement of ch. xx., which extends over the 
historical horizon, dare in no way be made parallel with the prophecy, 
xi. 1-18, which expressly (ver. 8, vv. 1,2) indicates its historical relation. — 
Against the not allegorical explanation, Hengstenb. says further, that “we 
cannot understand how an announcement of the future fate of Jewish Jeru- 
salem... should occur just at this place, hemmed in between the sixth and 
seventh trumpets, the second and third woes, which have to do only with 


1 Matt. xxiv.; Luke xxi. Luke xxi. 24, as a prediction of Christ, be 

2 Against Liticke, etc. SIC 45/9: suggested in connection with the expression 

4 Cf. also Volkm.: ‘* The Jewish seer has in the Apoc., notwithstanding the entire de- 
completely deceived himself in his hope for struction of the city entering therein.” 
Jerusalem and the Jewish people. But let 5 Ch. vii. 


CHAP, ΧΙ. 13. 325 
worldly power.” The answer is immediately given, and that, too, not only 
from the methodical progress in itself of the Apoc. vision, — which Heng- 
stenb. confuses by his view, in violation of the context, that xi. 1-13 occurs 
between the second and third woe, while what is here said belongs rather to 
the second woe, ver. 14,1 — but also, as is equally decisive, in fullest harmony 
with the fundamental prediction of the Lord. — When Hengstenb. judges 
further that the account of the two witnesses is comprehensible only by an 
allegorical exposition, it is, on the one hand, to be answered, that the allegor- 
izing obliteration of the definite features referring to personalities ? ill har- 
monizes with the text, and, on the other hand, the non-allegorizing exposition 
must accept the difficulties, just as the text offers them, and attempt their 
explanation. — Finally? Hengstenb. mentions the testimony of Irenaeus, 
which places the composition of the Apoc. in the time after the destruction 
of Jerusalem, and must consequently prevent the expositor from accepting, 
in ver. 1 sqq., the existence of the temple and city, and regarding the destruc- 
tion as future. Liicke, who, with the fullest right, places the self-witness 
of the Apoc. above the testimony of Irenaeus, and vindicates for the exegete 
the freedom required above all things by the text, acknowledges the possi- 
bility that, in case John wrote after the fall of the city, by a kind of fiction 
he might have represented this fact as future. Therefore the statement 
(πατῆσουσιν, ver. 2) would at all events be future, and refer to the destruction 
of the city. But Bleek correctly denies even the possibility of conceiving of 
this passage according to the rule of such a fiction, to say nothing of its 
being entirely aimless. 

The most immediate norm for the correct exposition resulting from the 
wording of the text itself, has already been asserted in opposition to the alle- 
gorists; viz., the reference to Jerusalem, ver. 8, vv. 1, 2, and to the judgment 
impending over this city (ver. 2, πατήσουσιν).Ύ. Another no less important 
norm, to which also the phraseology, ver. 2 (ἐδ. τοῖς é@veoww — πατήσουσιν), points 
by its similarity with Luke xxi. 24, shows the essential agreement of our pre- 
diction with the fundamental prediction of the Lord.* For, just as the Lord 
himself places the final judgment in inner connection with the end of the 
world, — to such an extent, that apparently even an external chronological 
connection is expressed, — so John predicts the ultimate fulfilment (which is 
here represented in the seventh trumpet-vision, xi. 15 sqq.) in such a way 
that he begins with the judgment upon Jerusalem, xi. 1-13. After x.7 sqq., 
he is now to announce the completion of the mystery of God. The coinple- 
tion itself does not occur, as in x. 7 also it is expressly said, until the time 
of the seventh trumpet (xi. 15 sqq.), in which also the third woe falls (cf. 
xi. 14); but the announcement committed to John begins, nevertheless, not 


1 Cf. the introductory observations on ch. x. 

2 See on ver. 13 sqq. 

8 The other observations of Hengstenb., 
that the beast (ver. 7) has, according to xiii. 7, 
8, nothing to do with the Jewish, but with the 
holy, Jerusalem, and that the allegorical inter- 
pretation shows only that the prediction ex- 


tends to us, carry with them their own answer. 
The beast does something antichristian in slay- 
ing the witnesses of Christ, and every thing 
biblical concerns us. Are we to interpret 
Luke xix. 41 sqq. allegorically, because what 
is there written pertains to us? 

4 Luke xxi.; Matt. xxiv. 


326 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

first with xi. 15, but already at xi. 1. And what is here (vv. 1-13) pre- 
dicted belongs to the second woe, and therefore stands in the connection of 
the series with the third, soon-coming woe. 

No one would have thought of denying, in ver. 1-13, the reference afforded 
from the wording, and the analogy with the eschatological discourses of the 
Lord to the impending destruction of Jerusalem, and in order to do this, 
would have had to resort to allegorical explanation, if, on the other hand, the 
prediction of John did not deviate from that fundamental prediction, and 
the fact of the destruction had not in reality occurred, as the Lord, but not 
as John, had predicted. But just the latter difficulty brings with itself the 
solution; for it follows, from the peculiar deviations from Matt. xxiv., Luke 
xxi., that John, in his prophecy concerning Jerusalem, had an entirely dif- 
ferent purpose from the Lord himself, and accordingly he puts his prophetic 
description of the impending act oi judgment in a peculiar light, and paints 
it in other colors.1_ The Lord announces simply the definite fact of the de- 
struction of the city; ? he mentions Judah and Jerusalem, and describes how 
the Gentile enemies will build a rampart against it, plunder it, and not leave 
one stone upon another, a destruction which affected the dishonored temple 
no less than the holy city. According to the description of John, there 
would be only a period during the 81 years of oppression known already 
from Daniel, in which the city and the court are trodden under foot by the 
Gentiles; the temple proper is preserved from all indignity and devastation. 
During this time, the two witnesses of Christ come forth as preachers of 
repentance, who, according to their nature and office,—not according to 
their individual personality, — are the two olive-trees and candlesticks 
(anointed ones) of whom Zech. spake, ver. 4; they are Moses and Elijah,’ 
—not Enoch and Elijah, who, as prophetic preachers of repentance, are 
thought of as having returned to the same desert, just as Elijah returned in 
the manifestation of John the Baptist.6 But these were killed, and that, 
too, by the beast from the abyss, whose mention in this place —as it prop- 
erly belongs only to the seventh trumpet — gives an indication for the con- 
ception of the ideal standpoint from which John regards the impending 
judgment upon Jerusalem in connection with its full and final development. 
No less significant is the hatred which the Gentiles present in the city — of 


1 Without foundation in the context, Weiss, 
a.a. O., p. 29, designates the meaning of the 
whole: ‘It is to be represented how, notwith- 
standing the impending destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, yet the final deliverance of a last remnant 
of the holy people, promised by all the proph- 
ets, is to occur”? (in distinction from Rom. xi. 
26: πᾶς “Iop.). This theologumenon as such 
is entirely remote. 

2 Cf. also Luke xix. 41 sqq. 

8 Ver. 5 sqq. Cf. Matt. xvii. 1 sqq., De 
Wette, Liicke, Ew. ii., Hilgenf., ete. 

4 Stern, Ew.i. Beda already rejects this 
view disseminated in the Church fathers. An 
interesting reference to this passage is found 


in the Gospel of Nicodemus, P. ii. (Desc. 
Chr. ad Inf., ¢. 9), where Enoch says of 
himself and Elijah: μέλλομεν ζῆσαι μέχρι τῆς 
συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος" τότε δὲ μέλλομεν ἀποσ- 
ταλῆναι παρὰ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τῷ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ ἄφτ«- 
χρίστῳ καὶ ἀποκτανθῆναι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ μετὰ 
τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστῆναι καὶ ἐν νεφέλαις ἁρπαγ- 
ναι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ὑπάντησιν (“ὟΥ͂ 6 are 
to live until the completion of the world; then 
we are to be sent by God to withstand Anti- 
christ, and to be slain by him, and after three 
days to be raised and snatched up in the clouds 
to meet the Lord”) (Zv. Apocr., ed. Tisch., 
Lips., 1853, p. 309). 
5 Cf. Matt. xvii. 12; Lukei. 17. 


CHAP. XI. 13. 327 


whom we are to think so preponderatingly in the expression οἱ κατοικοῦντες 
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, that the reference to the unbelieving Jews retires altogether into 
the background — show to the dead bodies of Christ’s witnesses. Finally, 
in comparison with the fundamental prophecy of the Lord, it is significant 
for the distinct mode of contemplation by John, that here an earthquake, 
after the manner of the preliminary plagues described in the seal- and 
trumpet-visions, visits the city, destroys a part of it, and brings the survivors 
to repentance, in contrast with the plagues remaining fruitless to those in 
the Gentile world;1 on which account, then, the seventh trumpet brings the 
complete destruction of the antichristian world. While, therefore, the Lord 
himself predicts the real fact of the destruction of Jerusalem, the same im- 
pending fact, of course, forms also for John the real goal of his prophecy; 
besides, he also agrees with the Lord in the fundamental prediction, in this, 
that he likewise maintains the inner connection between the individual acts 
of judgment upon Jerusalem, and the full final judgment; but in other re- 
spects the prediction of John is of an ideal character, so that we are neither 
to seek for the real fulfilment of individual expressions, nor, in order to con- 
ceal the incongruity between the words of prophecy and the facts of the 
destruction, to resort to the allegorical mode of exposition. In John, a 
judgment impends over the city, which is brought about no more by the 
heathen treading under foot (ver. 2) than by the earthquake (ver. 13), in 
the development of the mystery of God until its final completion, as a chief 
link in the chain of preliminary plagues, since it also forms a part of 
the second woe. But from this standpoint, the holy city cannot appear in the 
same light as the Gentile city, from the ground of antichristian secular 
power; but just as the sealed of God, as such, could not be touched by cer- 
tain plagues,? the temple proper, as God’s place of revelation, is preserved 
from the feet of the Gentiles, while the city wherein the witnesses of Christ 
like their Lord are slain is condemned to judgment. But this is distin- 
guished also from the complete judgment upon Babylon, by the fact that 
the plague (the earthquake) is wrought as a salutary purification, since only 
the antichristian part are obliterated, while the rest of Israel are converted, 
and remain in safety.2 We must therefore decide, not that in vv. 1-13 
John allegorizes by representing the future destinies of the Christian Church 
under Jewish symbols, but that he idealizes,4 by endeavoring to announce 
beforehand the impending destruction of Jerusalem, not according to the 
actual circumstances, but according to their inner connection with the ulti- 
mate fulfilment of the mystery of God,® and correspondingly to state the 
hope which the O. T. people of God still retained, in contrast with the hea- 
then secular power, i.e., with “Babylon.” In this ideal representation of 
prophecy, there belongs also the similar feature (ver. 4 sqq.). John does 
not think that Moses and Elijah will actually return,® accordingly he does 


1 Cf. ix. 20, xvi. 9. “ns a ba from ver. 8 to Jerusalem, and also rejecting 
8 Cf. Isa. xxxvii. 31 sq.; Rom. ix. 27 sqq.,  allegorizing, reaches the result that ‘ the 

xis Ts Christianity of the last times appears as Jeru- 
4 Klief., who decidedly controverts this, salem.” 


nevertheless, by referring the closing words δ xX. ἣν 6 Against Hilgenf., etc. 


328 THE REVELATION OF ST, JOHN. 


not mention them; but with colors derived from the words of Zechariah, as 
also from the history of Moses and Elijah, he paints the ideal picture of the 
two prophetic preachers of repentance, who are to work in the manner, 
the spirit, and the power of Moses and Elijah. Hence we are not to inquire’ 
for a particular “meaning,” or a particular “fulfilment” of what is here said.1 

Vv. 15-19. At the blast of the seventh trumpet, which? will bring the 
glorious end, songs of praise resound in heaven which proclaim the fulfil- 
ment as having already occurred (vv. 15-18). At the opening of the 
heavenly temple of God, the ark of the covenant therein is visible, and light- 
nings, and other signs, indicating the judgments belonging to the actual 
fulfilment of the mystery of God, occur. | 

Ver. 15. ἐγένοντο φωναὶ pey., «.7.A4. To whom these voices belonged, is 
neither to be asked nor to be answered. Ewald wants to ascribe them to 
the four beasts;* De Wette, to the angels; Beng., to various dwellers in 
heaven, angels and men. Hengstenb. tries to show that the innumerable 
hosts, vii. 9 sq., are to be understood. This is incorrect, because the hosts 
which John there sees proleptically in heaven do not as yet correspond 
in xi. 15, with the progressive course of the visions, but are not actually in 
heaven until xv. 2 sqq.4 Also in vv. 15-19 Hengstenb. mistakes the pro- 
leptical reference correctly understood by C. a Lap., Beng., Ew., De Wette, 
etc., by regarding all the contents of the seventh trumpet (the third woe) 
exhausted already with ver. 19. Still more preposterously, Ebrard limits 
the seventh trumpet to vv. 15-18.5— ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, where John is not as yet,® 
but whither the look of the seer is directed.? —Aéyovres. Cf. iv. 8, v. 13. 
ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ κόσμους The regal dominion over the world.® Instead of the 
obj. gen., in xvil. 18, ἐπί follows. Cf. also i. 6, xii. 10. The immediately 
following καὶ βασιλεύσει presupposes not only the active idea of ἡ βασιλεία, 
but also this reading. Incorrectly, Luther, according to the var. supported 
by Ew. ii., ἐγένοντο ai βασιλεῖαι : the kingdoms of this world. — The prolepti- 
cal 3 in the songs of the heavenly voices lies in this, that immediately after 
the sound of the trumpet, and yet before any thing else has actually occurred 
of what is afterwards celebrated with similar songs of praise,!° they say, 
ἐγένετο ἡ βασ., «.7.A.11 In reality the dominion over the world does not become 
God’s and that of his Anointed until the wrathful judgment described, viz., 
until ch. xviii., yea, in another respect until xx. 10, has actually dislodged 
from its assumed dominion all ungodly and antichristian power, which, by its 
rebellion 15 against the only King and Lord, had usurped, to an extent, a part 
of his βασιλεία. The inner justification of the prolepsis — which Hengstenb. 
acknowledges only at vv. 15-18 in the relation to ver. 19, where he finds the 
final judgment —lies in the fact that the seventh trumpet has already 
actually sounded; that one, therefore, from which the real fulfilment of the 


1 See Intr., p. 42. 8 Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 

OL xe 3 iy. 8. 9 Also Klief. 

4 Cf. xix. 1 sqq. 10 Cf. xix. 1 sqq. 

5 See on ver. 19. 11 Cf. yer. 17 sq.: εἴληφας --- ἐβασίλευσας --- 
6 Cf. x. a. ἦλθεν. 


7 De Wette. 12 Beng. 


φ 


CHAP. XI. 16-18. 929 


mystery of God will infallibly proceed. But even if only a special series 
of further visions leads to that final consummation, yet the prospective cele- 
bration of that glorious result, especially in the mouth of the dwellers in 
heaven, has, after the sounding of the seventh trumpet, its full justification 
and beautiful significance; the allusion, however, in connection with this, to 
redemption, as the proper root of the fact here celebrated,? is entirely out of 
place. — rod κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ aitod. Not only the expression,® but 
also the idea, points back to Ps. ii. 2, for the Lord’s Anointed is the Son of 
God because of the βασιλεία, which is taken in generat, indeed, from the 
nations, yet only for their destruction. — The ἡμῶν with τ. κυρίου does not 
give here a statement strange in itself concerning the co-regency of the 
saints,® but corresponds, as also xii. 10, xix. 1, v. 6, to the joy of those who 
now behold their Lord and God, whom they themselves serve, in his victori- 
ous dominion: over the judged world. —«. βασιλεύσει εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τ. αἰών. 
For, after his overthrow of all powers opposed to God, no new enemy could 
arise. The subj. to βασιλεύσει is ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν; 5 but his Christ is manifestly 
understood as partner of this βασιλεία. 

Vv. 16-18. Similar ascriptions of praise on the part of the twenty-four 
elders. ἔπεσαν ἐπὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτων, like all angels. For the deepest humilia- 
tion of adoring creatures is becoming when the highest revelation of the 
glory of God, as here the subduing of all enemies, stands before the eyes.§ — 
εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι. They give thanks, not because they consider themselves 
partakers of the great power and government of God,® which is as remote as 
in ver. 15, but because (ὅτε εἴληφας, «.7.4,) the assumption of dominion on 
God’s part has brought to the oppressors of the Church, whose representa- 
tives the elders are, retributory vengeance, but to the servants of God the 
complete reward.?° The ascription of adoration, κύριε 6 θεὸς ὁ mavtuKparup, K.T.A.s 
in which the guaranty for the glorious result of God’s ways was previously 
indicated, appears now when that glorious end is beheld as already attained 
to be actually realized.12, But from the former significant designation of 
God, 6 ὧν καὶ ὁ ἣν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος,18 this last point necessarily is omitted; for 
the ascription of praise, even though proleptical, applies even to that which 
has now come, and thus the fulfilment of his mystery has been attained.14 
Luther improperly follows the bad revision of the text, in which the καὶ 6 épy. 
is interpolated from i. 8, iv. 8. — ὅτι. εἴληφας τ. δύναμίν σου τ. wey. καὶ ἐβασίλευσας. 
The assumption of great power! is the means for entrance upon the king- 
dom ;?° but as the exclamation κύριε ὁ ϑεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ properly conditions 
the mode of representation in the ἐβασίλευσας, the σου with the τ. δύναμ. marks 


1 Beng., De Wette, etc. 10 Ver. 18. Cf. also vi. 9 sqq., vii. 14 sqq., 
2 Hengstenb. xix. 1 sqq. 
8 Cf. xii. 10; Acts iv. 26. 11 4, 8, iv. 8. Cf. also x. 6. 
4 Cf. ver. 18. 2 OLS EVs Oy ΧΥ]. 7, 14. χῖχι 6, 15, =xi. 52, 
5 Hengstenb. 13 j. 8, iv. 8. 
6 According to ver. 17: κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὃ 14 Cf. xvi. 5. Beng., Hengstenb. 
παντοκρ. 15 Cf. Zech. vi. 13; Ps. xciii. 1. 
7 Beng., De Wette. 16 Of., on this application of the idea of 
8 Cf. iv. 10, v. 8, 14, xix. 4. Beng. βασιλεύειν, Ps. xciii.1; 2 Sam. xv. 10, xvi. 8, 


9 Hengstenb. etc. 


330 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


also the presupposition that it was only, apparently, that the unconditioned 
power which he has now seized was not possessed by the eternal Ruler of all, 
while he allowed the antichristian powers to be exercised against himself 
and his Christ. — Ver. 18. According to the fundamental thought of ver. 2,1 
although the expression comes from Ps. xcix. 1,? there is a description of 
how the wrath of God has risen against the wrath of his enemies, to the 
destruction of the destroyers, in the final judgment which brings its reward 
to the servants of God. — The more minute description in the words ra ἔθνη 
ὠργίσθησαν, x.7.A., Of the εἴληφας τ. δύν., «.7.4., ver. 17,3 which occurs in the 
final judgment described here in all its parts, is subjoined by the simple 
καὶ. But the entire ascription of adoration proves itself to be so clearly a 
prolepsis of that which is not represented in details until in the visions fol- 
lowing that extend up to xxii. 5, and comprise the actual end, that even the 
expressions mostly agree with those of the succeeding chapter. The expla- 
nation of the tenor of the subject is to be derived from what follows. How 
the enraged Gentiles, impelled by the anger of the devil,* come forth against 
the Lord and his servants, is, of course, to be seen already from xi. 9 sqq.;° 
but the complete representation of the Gentile antichrist is given first in 
what follows,® and it properly pertains to this, that ἦλθεν 7 ὀργῇ cov is de- 
scribed as actually entering, first in chs. xvi—xviil., and then xix. 1 sqq., 
is celebrated as actually occurring, just as in this passage proleptically. 
The expression τοὺς διαφθείροντας τ. γῆν is to be understood first from the entire 
description of Babylon, the antichristian secular power.’ The καιρὸς τῶν 
vexpov κριθῆναι, Which is celebrated in this passage proleptically as having 
already occurred (ἦλθεν), occurs actually not until in xx. 11 sqq.; so also the 
time for giving the servants of God their reward occurs actually not until 
the Divine completion of the mystery of God (xxi. 1-xxil. 5). — τοῖς δούλοις 
σου --- μεγάλοι: This circumstantial formula is intended to designate the 
entire number of all those who receive God’s reward in contrast with those 
condemned to judgment.’ The classification is not to be pressed, — against 
Beng. and Hengstenb., who refer the τ. dova. σ. to τ. προφ. and x. τ. ἁγίοις, and 
oppose to these servants of God, in an eminent sense, the entire mass of 
those who fear the name of the Lord (x. τ. φοβ., «.7.4.), in connection with 
which Hengstenb. wants a special emphasis recognized as resting not only 
upon τ. ἁγίοις, but immediately afterwards also upon τοῖς μικροῖς, as he under- 
stands small and great not in the simplest sense.? But τ. δούλ. cov belongs ?° , 
only to τ. προφήταις, whereby all those are designated who have served God 
by proclaiming the Divine mysteries. Beside them stand the ἅγιοι, as be- | 
lievers in general are called.1! The final designation x. τ. φοβουμ. τ. dv. σου τοὶς 
μικροὶς καὶ τ. wey., comprehends finally and summarily the entire mass of the 


1 Cf. already ver. 15. with reference to the actually fulfilled judg- 
2 LXX.: ὃ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν, ὀργιζέσθωσαν ment, to the διαφθεῖραι in this passage. 

λαοί. Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb. 8 Cf. xxi. 1 sqq., iii. 5, 12, 21. 
3 Cf. De Wette. 9 xiii. 16, xix. 18, xx. 12; Acts viii. 10, xxvi. 
ἀκ ΤΠ ΣῊ: 22. Cf. Ps. exv. 13, where, of course, Heng- 
5 Cf. vi. 10. stenb. interprets ‘‘ the great’ as priests. 
6 Cf. xiii. 10 sqq., xvi. 6, xvii. 6, xviii. 24. 10 Cf. x. 7. 


7 Cf. xix. 2, where the ἔκρινε corresponds, 11 xiii. 7, 10, xiv. 12, xvii. 6, xx. 9, xviii. 20. * 


951 


΄ 


CHAP. XI. 19. 


godly, no matter whether prophets or saints absolutely, whether small or 
great. 

Ver. 19. Corresponding, on God’s part, to the songs of adoration with 
which the inhabitants of heaven, immediately after the sounding of the 
seventh trumpet, celebrate the fulfilment of the mystery of God (prolepti- 
cally), is the opening of the heavenly temple, whereby the ark of the cove- 
nant in the holiest of all, up to this time hidden, becomes visible no less to 
John and to the entire host of heaven. What this, together with the accom- 
panying lightning, etc., signifies, must be misunderstood if we either? find 
the entire contents of what belongs in the seventh trumpet actually ex- 
hausted with ver. 19, and consequently regard ver. 19 itself as the descrip- 
tion of the final judgment, —so that then with ch. xii. we begin anew “by 
recapitulating,”—or entirely separate ver. 19 from vv. 15-18, and with 
ver. 18 stand already at the actual end,® so that with ver. 19 the recapitu- 
lation begins. According to the former view, in ver. 19 blessedness is pre- 
pared for the godly, as well as condemnation announced against the godless. 
But if in ver. 19 the actual fulfilment of the mystery of God is to be ren- 
dered conspicuous, this conclusion would be highly unsatisfactory; yet it is 
never said what is the effect of the lightning, etc. In the correct feeling of 
“mysterious brevity,” ὁ which the entire section (vv. 15-19) has, if the same 
is to bring the conclusion actually announced in x. 7, Vitr., Hengstenb., etc., 
refer to ch. xvi. sqq., as the further development of what is here briefly said. 
In this there lies an uncertain acknowledgment of that which De Wette, 
ete., have said with distinctness concerning the proleptical nature of the 
entire section, vv. 15-19; for in the same way as the ascriptions of adora- 
tion, upon the basis of the fact that the seventh trumpet has sounded, antici- 
pate the fulfilment still to be actually expected, the signs also described in 
both parts of ver. 19 are not the real execution of the final judgment, but 
the immediate preparations and adumbrations thereof. The temple of God 
in heaven is the place where God’s final judgments of wrath upon the world 
issue ;7 the ark of the covenant, present therein, is the heavenly symbol and 
pledge of the immutable grace of God, because of which the blessed mys- 
tery 8 promised through the prophets to believers whom he has received into 
his covenant, shall undoubtedly be fulfilled. If, therefore, after the blast 
of the seventh trumpet, the temple of God is opened so that the ark of the 
covenant becomes visible, the door is opened, as it were, for the final judg- 
ment proceeding from® the most secret sanctuary of God concerning the 


1 Cf. xxii. 9. 

2 Cf. iii. 12, vii. 15, xiv. 15, etc. 

3 In order to explain the conception of this 
entire view, we need not recall the Jewish 
statement: ‘* Quodcunque in terra est, id etiam 
in coelo est” (Sohar, Genes., p. 91 in Schott- 
gen; De Hieros. Coelesti, sec. 2; Hor. Hebr., 
p- 1206). John speaks of a heavenly temple, 
altar, ark of the covenant, with the same right 
as of a heavenly throne, seats of the elders, etc. 
But the introduction of the Jewish fable, that 


in the last Messianic times, the real lost ark of 
the covenant, which, meanwhile, has been con- 
cealed in heaven, will again be brought to 
sight (against Ewald),—of this there is no 
trace in the text. 

4 Hengstenb. 
Calov., ete. 

5 Ebrard. 

6 Hengstenb. 

7 Cf. xiv. 15, 17, xv. 5 8qq., xvi. 1, 17. 

Ne aay 9 Cf. xix. 2. 


Cf. already Beda, Aret., 


832 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


godless world, and the sight of the ark indicates that the fulfilment of the 
hope of sharers in the covenant, pledged by it, is now to be realized. For 
on this account, also, there are threatening foretokens1! of that which at the 
execution of the judgment actually comes upon the antichristian world.? 
So also Klief. ; 

The older allegorists, from whose mode of exposition Hengstenb. and 
Ebrard deviate in ver. 15 sqq., advance here also the most wonderful propo- 
sitions. N. de Lyra refers the whole to the victory of the Goths, and other 
Arians under Narses. The seventh trumpet-angel is the Emperor Justin II. 
—In Calov. and other older Protestants, who, however, recognize the pro- 
leptical character of vv. 15-19 less distinctly, the reference to the Papacy 
coheres with their view of the succeeding chapters. The ark of the cove- 
nant (ver. 19) is applied by.many to Christ, while C. a Lap. and the Cath. 
want to refer it especially to the Virgin Mary, yet without denying the refer- 
ence to the humanity of Christ. — Eichh., Heinr., etc., find here the literal 
destruction of Jerusalem, and, accordingly, the complete victory of Christi- 
anity over Judaism —Zin connection with which τ. ἔθνη ὠργίσθ., ver. 18, is 
explained: “Judaism offered difficulties to Christian discipline,” and the 
βασιλεύσει, x.7.A., ver. 15, is interpreted: “It shall come to pass that the Chris- 
tian religion-shall be oppressed by no other;” the βρονταὶ, x.7.2., ver. 19, 
indicate the ruin of the city. Grot. maintained his reference to the times 
of Barcocheba‘* by such interpretations as that of βασιλεύσει, x.7.A., ver. 15: 
“ The Christian religion will always be in Judaea;” or on ver. 18: “ By this, 
Christians who were in Judaea were commanded always to elevate their 
minds to the highest heaven where God dwells, where the ark of the cove- 
nant, i.e., the good things of the new covenant, are kept in store.” 


ν᾽ 


NoTEs BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LXVII. Ver. 1. τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, K.7.A. 


Alford argues at length in criticism of Dusterdieck’s interpretation, by 
which the measuring is referred to the literal and earthly Jerusalem: ‘‘ I would 
strongly recommend any one who takes that view, to read through the very 
unsatisfactory and shuffling comment of Dusterdieck here; the result of which 
is, that, finding, as he of course does, many discrepancies between this and our’ 
Lord’s prophecy of the same destruction of Jerusalem, he is driven to the refuge 
that while our Lord describes matters of fact, St. John idealizes the catastrophe, 
setting it forth, not as it really took place, but according to its inner connection 
with the final accomplishment of the mystery of God, and correspondently with 
the hope which God’s O. T. people possessed, as contrasted with the heathen 
power of this world which abides in ‘Babylon.’ But if ‘ Babylon’ is the 
abode of the world, why not ‘ Jerusalem’ of the Church ? If our interpreter, 
maintaining the literal sense, is allowed so far to ‘idealize’ as to exempt the 


1 Cf, viii. 5. 8 According to Calov.’s interpretation of τὰ 
2 Cf. xvi. 18 sqq., where hail also is again ἔθνη as referring to Catholics. 
mentioned. 4 Cf. xi. 13. 


NOTES. 833 


temple of God itself (ver. 1) from a destruction which we know overtook it, 
and nine-tenths of the city (ver. 13) from an overthrow which destroyed it all, 
surely there is an end to the meaning of words. If Jerusalem here is simply 
Jerusalem, and the prophecy regards her overthrow by the Romans, and espe- 
cially if this passage is to be made such use of as to set aside the testimony 
of Irenzus as to the date of the Apoc. by the stronger testimony of the Apoc. 
itself [so Diisterdieck from Liicke], then must every particular be shown to tally 
with known history; or, if this cannot be done, at least it must be shown that 
none contradicts it. If this cannot be done, then we may fairly infer that the 
prophecy has no such reference, or only remotely, here and there, and not as to 
its principal subject. Into whatever difficulty we may be led by the remark, it 
is no less true that the πόλις 7 ἁγία of ver. 2 cannot be the same as the πόλις 7 
μεγάλη of ver. 8. This has been felt by the literal interpreters, and they have 
devised ingenious reasons why the holy city should afterwards be called the 
great city. . . . Dusterd.: ‘Because it is impossible in one breath to call a city 
‘holy,’ and ‘Sodom and Egypt.’ Most true; then must we not look for some 
other city than one which this very prophecy has called most holy?’’ He 
understands the ναὸς τ. θεοῦ and its θυσιαστήριον as referring to ‘‘ the Church of 
the elect servants of God, everywhere in this book symbolized by Jews in deed 
and truth. The society of these, as a whole, is the νάος agreeably to Scripture 
symbolism elsewhere, e.g., 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17, and is symbolized by the inner or 
holy place of the Jerusalem temple, in and among which they, as true Israelites 
and priests unto God, have aright to worship and minister. These are they 
who, properly speaking, alone are measured ; estimated again and again in this 
book by tale and number, —partakers in the first resurrection, the Church 
of the first-born.’”? Gebhardt, however, while emphatically rejecting Diister- 
dieck’s literalism, restricts the measuring to Jewish Christians (p. 258): ‘* Can 
we still understand ‘the holy city,’ ‘the great city,’ to be Jerusalem in a purely 
local sense? No; the city is Jerusalem, but, as frequently elsewhere, it is at 
’ the same time the representative of the Jewish people. The seer was to 
‘measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein;’ 
i.e., as Christians generally were protected from the trumpet and vial plagues 
(vii. 1-4), so should Christians out of Israel be protected from the judgments 
. which were to come upon Jerusalem and the Jewish people (compare Matt. 
xxiv. 15-18). On the contrary, the court without the temple was to be ‘ left 
out,’ for it was given to the Gentiles, and they should tread the holy city under 
foot forty and two months; i.e., the judgments already predicted by Daniel will 
burst in upon the non-christian, unbelieving Jewish people. Whether John, by 
its being given to the Gentiles, and their treading it under foot, had in mind the 
destruction of Jerusalem, the words do not expressly say.”’ 


834 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


CHAPTER XII. 


Ver. 2. κράζει. So A, Elz., Beng., Griesb., Tisch. δὲ: καὶ κράζει [W. and H.]. 
The well-attested reading καὶ ἔκραζεν (C, 2, 3, al., Primas, Andr., Vulg., Syr., 
Matth. — but without καὶ, --- Lach.) is apparently, like the ill-attested ἔκραζεν, a 
modification. Also in ver. 4, Primas, Vulg., substitute the imperf. for cipe. — 
Ver. 5. Instead of the most generally supported ἄρρενα (8, Elz., Beng., Griesb., 
Matth., Tisch. 1854), Lach., whom Tisch. 1859 and LX. follows, has written, 
in accord with A, C, ἄρσεν. The incorrectness (De Wette) of this so strongly 
attested reading is not greater than, e.g., xi. 4; besides, the preceding and suc- 
ceeding τὸ τέκνον may, to an extent, explain the incorrect combination υἱὸν ἄρσεν, 
in which the one conception appears to be in a certain apposition with the other. 
— Ver. 6. The Hebraizing (cf. iii. 8, vii. 2) ἐκεῖ after ὅπου ἔχει (A, &, 2, 4, 6, al., 
Compl., Plant., Genev., Beng., Griesb., Matth., Tisch. [W. and H.]) is alto- 
gether absent in C (Elz., Lach.); but even if one wished to admit of no 
intentional avoidance of the Hebraism, the accidental omission alongside of 
ἔχει appears easy. — Ver. 7. τοῦ πολεμῆσαι peta. So Beng. already, according to 
decided witnesses. The modification ἐπολέμησαν κατὰ (Elz.) has no critical 
authority whatever. In §& the τοῦ is lacking, but only by an oversight. In- 
dorsed by Tisch. IX.— Ver. 10. ἐβλήθη. So A, C, &, 2, 4, al., Beng., Matth., 
Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Incorrectly, Elz.: κατεβλ. ---- καινηγορῶν αὐτοὺς. A, 
28, Erasm., 1, 2, 3, al., Beng., Lach.. Tisch. The well-attested αὐτῶν (C, x, Elz., 
Griesb., Matth.) is suspicious because of its regularity; cf. Winer, p. 191.— 
Ver. 12. τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν. Unattested is the manifest gloss: τοῖς 
κατοικοῦσι THY γ. Kal THY OuA, (Elz.). But even the reading, indorsed by Beng., 
Griesb., Matth., Lach. (small ed.), Tisch., 1854, τῇ γῇ x. τῇ θαλάσσῃ (B, 2, 4, 6, 
al., Vulg., Syr., Copt., Aeth., edd. Compl., Plant., Genev.) appears to be a 
modification (cf. viii. 13), while the accus., proposed by A (especially τὴν ἀγάπην 
k, τὴν θαλ.) and Οὐ, commends itself just by its difficulty, and has been received 
besides into the Elz. recension. Treg., Lach. (large ed.), and Tisch. 1859 and 
IX. [W. and H.], have the accus., which is by no means inexplicable (against 
De Wette). interprets: εἰς τ. y.— Ver. 17. The ἐπὶ before τῇ yuv. (A, δὲ, Elz., 
Tisch.) is lacking in C (Lach.), and is at least suspicious. — Ver. 18. ἐστάθη. 
See on ch. xiii. 


The fulfilment of the mystery of God impending, x. 7, in the days of the 
seventh trumpet is celebrated by the inhabitants of the earth as having 
already occurred ! after the seventh angel, xi. 15, has sounded his trumpet, 
but is not actually shown as yet to the seer; nevertheless, he has already 
(xi. 19) beheld such signs as cause the expectation of that end. That this, 
together with his eternal glory and blessedness, cannot come without pre- 
ceding divine judgments, is self-evident,? and is indicated also at the close of 


1 In a proleptical way. , 2 Cf. vi. 10. 


CHAP, XII. 1. 8385 


xi. 19, by threatening signs. xi. 17 also refers to the infernal nature that 
is operative in human hatred to Christ and his believers, and with respect 
to which, no less than to human antichristianism, the Lord comes to judg- 
ment; but if that judgment for which the Lord comes is to be otherwise 
stated with correct fulness and proof, not only must the most profound 
satanic basis of all antichristianism incurring the judgment be first dis- 
covered, but also the most essential forms in which this enters the world 
from the ultimate foundation of satanic antichristianism must also be 
stated. The former occurs in ch. xii.: Satan, who had in vain persecuted 
Christ himself, turns with his antichristian fury against Christ’s believers. 
Ver. 1 sq. σημεῖον. An appearance whereby something is described, and 
thus revealed to the seer, onuaivera.2 In the most general sense, any appear- 
ance beheld by John might be called a σημεῖον (Hix) ; but although such vis- 
ions as Vi. ὃ sqq., Vili. 7-ix. 21, are, therefore, in no way of an allegorical 
nature, because in themselves they describe things just as the prophet regards 
them as real (real shedding of blood, vi. 3; real famine, vi. 5 sqq.; real quak- 
ing of the earth, and falling of heavenly bodies, and other real plagues), the 
σημεῖον in this passage (cf. ver. 3, xv. 1) has in it something allegorical, — 
since the context in itself manifests this, and marks it by the particular 
expression σημεῖον, ---- inasmuch as, by the form of the woman that is beheld, 
it is not the person of an actual woman which is to be represented. — μέγα; 
“ great,” i.e., of large appearance, and, accordingly, of important signifi- 
cance. — ὥφθη. ΟἿ. xi. 19. —év τῷ οὐρανῷ: Heaven is the locality where 4 
signs bringing a revelation manifest themselves to the seer.' So, correctly, 
De Wette and Hengstenb., only that the former ® aseribes to John a repeated 
inconsistency in reference to the standpoint, — which is regarded as being, 
from xi. 15, again in heaven, but afterwards (xi. 18) is imperceptibly trans- 
ferred to the earth, — while Hengstenb. repeats the error:7 “To be in the 
Spirit, and to be in heaven, is the same,” with which the explanation, “ What 
the seer sees belongs not to sensuous, but supersensuous, spheres,” by no means 
properly harmonizes. The latter remark is allied to the false interpretation 
of the ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, attempted in a twofold way, according to which the ἐν τ. 
οὐρ. is understood with reference to the γυνήῆ,8 or the δράκων, ver. 3.9— γυνῆ 
Whether and in what way the Church is to be understood by the 
woman, cannot be inferred until the close of the entire vision,!° since the partic- 
ular points of the text condition the meaning of the whole. The emblematic 
description (περιβεβλημένη ---- δώδεκα) represents the woman who is just about 
bearing, ver. 2, in a heavenly brilliancy reminding us of the manifestation 


- τεκεῖν. 


1 Cf. ver. 17. 2 ΟΥ 3.1. 9 Eichh.: ‘‘In the air, or, as commonly said, 


3 Cf. xv. 1, 3; Matt. xxiv. 24; Acts vi. 8, 
viii. 18; John i. 51, v. 20, xiv. 12. 

4. Cfoiv. 1. 

5 Cf. v. 1 sqq., Vi. 1 sqq., viii. 1 sqq., ix. 1 
sqq., x. 1, xi. 15 sqq. 

‘CL ποῖ, 7 Cf. iv. 1 sqq. 

8 Calov.: ‘* What is signified by the things 
which John saw in heavenly majesty is fulfilled 
in the ecclesiastical heaven.” Cf. Vitr., Beng., 
Auberlen, p. 282. 


the extreme region of the air; for that same 
place is to be assigned by the poet to the 
woman, as was believed to be that of the 
demons, good and bad, whom he wanted to 
produce upon the scene.” Cf. Grot.: “Τὴ the 
centre, between heaven and earth. In the 
matter signified, this means that heavenly and 
earthly causes mutually concur.” 
10 See on ver. 17. 


336 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

of Christ} and of God. ?— περιβεβλημένη τὸν ἥλιον. Clothed with the sun. The 
idea resembles that of Ps. civ. 2,8 only that in this passage the description 
is more concrete, since it is not light in general, but the more definite and 
perceptible sun, the heavenly body radiating all light, that appears as the 
dress of the woman, — not “as breastplate, and, accordingly, as an integrant 
part of the clothing.”* The περιβ. τ. ἥλιον allows a definite allegorical inter- 
pretation as little as the two other features of the description, καὶ ἣ σελήνη 
ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτῆς and καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὑτῆς στέφανας ἀστέρων δώδεκα, only 
that the definite number twelve of the stars is conditioned® in a similar way 
by the number of the tribes of Israel ;® as in i. 16, 20, the number seven of 
stars by the number of particular churches. The reference to the twelve 
apostles 7 is incorrect, because the woman appears at all events as mother of 
Christ, ver. 5, and accordingly cannot admit of emblems whose meaning 
presupposes not only the birth, but also the entire life and work, of the 
church. For the same reason, the allegorical interpretations of the ἥλιος, as 
referring to Christ himself as “the sun of righteousness,” ® and the σελήνη 
as referring to “the teachers who borrow their light from Christ,” ® or to 
“the light of the law and prophets far inferior to the light of Christ,” 19 
are to be rejected. Hengstenb. regards the sun and moon as: emblems of ’ 
the uncreated and the created light, which has in itself as little foundation 
as it stands in harmony with the (correct) reference of the twelve stars to 
the tribes of Israel; this applies against Beng., who understands by the sun 
the Christian empire and government, and by the moon the Mohammedan 
power whose insignia is the crescent. The allegorical interpretation also 
of the moon, which is “under the feet of the woman,” attempted with 
various modification, show their arbitrariness already by the fact that, in 
one way or another, they disturb the symmetrical relation to the other fea- 
tures of the description, which, as a whole, has only the intention of display- 
ing the holy and glorious nature of the woman from her heavenly form, 
whereby the individual features of the poetic description are as eminently 
beautiful as they are naturally striking. For the form of the woman itself 
appears clothed with the sun, and in the clearest radiancy; she stands also 
on a body of light, the moon; while a crown of stars —and that twelve — 
encircle her head also with a peculiar brilliancy. —'The woman is with child 
(ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα), and, besides, as the further description immediately after- 
wards ‘says more explicitly, just about to be delivered (cf. ver. 4 sq.): “She 
cried travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered” (κράζει ὠδίνουσα, κ.τ.}.).13 
[See Note LXVIII., p. 357.] 


1 j4,13-16. Cf. especially ver. 16: ἡ ὄψις avr. 
ὡς ὃ HALOS, K.T.A. 

2 iv. 3. 

3 ἀναβαλλόμενος φῶς ὡς ἱμάτιον. 

4 Ebrard. 

5 De Wette, Ebrard, Hengstenb., etc. 

6 Cf. vii. 4 sqq. 

7 Beda, C. a Lap., Stern, Aret., Vitr., etc. 

8 Andr., Beda, N. de Lyra, C.a Lap., Stern, 
Aret., Grot., Calov., etc. 


9 Calov. 10 Grot. 


11 Beda: ‘*The Church of Christ, girdled 
with light, treads under foot temporal glory.” 
Vitr.: ‘* Because, mutable things in religion 
being abolished, an immovable kingdom has 
followed.” Cf. C.a Lap., Herd., ete. Ebrard: 
‘©The moon is the night vanquished by her; 
the stars are the lights enkindled by her in the 
night, which vanquish it.” 0 

12 Concerning the loose connection of the 
inf. τεκεῖν With βασανιζομένη, cf. Winer, p. 306 
Βα. 


CHAP. XII. 3, 4. 3937 

Vv. 3,4. By another sign now becoming visible, the mortal enemy of 
the woman and her child, i.e., the devil, is described to the seer. The idea 
of the devil (cf. ver. 9) as a δράκων 1 15 based upon Gen. iii.,? to which the 
connection of ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας with ὁ ὄφις ὁ apy., ver. 9, and the interchange of 
the expressions ὁ δράκων and ὁ ὄφις, vv. 13, 15, clearly refers. The great size 
of the dragon may be inferred from his dreadful power ;% he appears to be 
Jiery red, either “ because fire *is the symbol of destruction and corruption,” 5 
or “ because he is the ἀνθρωποκτόνος an’ ἀρχῆς,᾽" ὃ and also “is intent upon the 
murder of the child of the woman, as well as the murder of all believers; 7 in 
᾿ favor of the last is especially the circumstance that the representation of the 
devil is given with concrete distinctness, viz., with respect to the Romish sec- 
ular power which is drunken with the blood of the martyrs.8 The objection 
that πυῤῥος is not blood-red 9 is not pertinent.!° — ἔχων κεφαλὰς --- ἑπτὰ διαδήματα. 
The two questions as to in what manner the ten horns on the seven diademed 
heads should be regarded as distributed, and what is the proper meaning and 
reference of these heads, horns, and diadems, inseparably cohere, but are not 
to be answered from the context of ch. xii. alone, but only from ch. xiii. 
᾿ compared with ch. xvii. Upon a mere conjecture depend the views of Vitr., 
that the middle head (i.e., Diocletian) bore all the ten horns (i.e., governed 
ten provinces); and of De Wette, that three heads had double horns. The 
opinion also of Bengel, received by Hengstenb., Ebrard, etc., that one of the 
heads, viz., the seventh, bore all ten horns, cannot be derived from xvii. 12. 
— With respect to the meaning of the heads, etc., only a few among the 
older allegorists have misjudged that since the seven heads, ten horns, and 
ten diadems are common to the dragon and the beast furnished with power 
from the same, ch. xiii., the interpretation there given by John himself must 
regulate the explanation also of ch. xii. The devil manifestly appears as 
the proper author, working in the deepest foundation of every antichristian 
being, in such form as corresponds to the form of the beast,‘i.e., of the anti- 
christian power actually entering this earthly world, and serving the dragon 
as an instrument. Without any support, therefore, are all such expositions 
as that of Tirinus, who understands the seven heads of the dragon as the seven 
deadly sins. But De Wette’s proposition also to explain the heads as an 
emblem of sagacity, and the horns of power, and the numbers seven and ten 
as the well-known mystical numbers without precise significance, in no way 
satisfies the analogy of ch. xiii.; the numbers also maintain their definite 
application in ch. xiii. (and ch. xi), and, therefore, cannot be taken in similar 
indefiniteness as that of the τὸ τρίτον τ. dor. directly afterwards in ver. 4. It 
is 12 the antichristian secular power of the Roman Empire which is beheld in 


1 Cf Kidduschim, p. 29, 2 b.; Wetst.: “A 
demon appeared to him in the form of a dragon 
having seven heads.” 

2 Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 8. 

3 Cf. ver. 4: x. ἡ οὐρὰ, «.7.A. 

4 Cf. ix. 17 sqq. 5 Ebrard. 

6 John viii. 44. 

7 Vict., N. de Lyra, C.a Lap., Aret., De 
Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 


8 Cf. xvii. 4, 6. 
9 Ebrard. 

10 Cf. on vi. 4. 

11 ἐς The pride of the lion, the greed of the 
tiger, the luxury of the bear, the gluttony of 
the wolf, the enmity of the serpent, the wrath 
of the viper, the indolence of the ass.”’ 

12 Cf. already Vict. 


998 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
ch. xiii. under the form of the seven-headed and ten-horned beast;} and, be- 
sides, the precise number of heads, horns, and diadems was based upon the 
historical relations of that empire; ? according to this is to be understood the 
analogous and, as it were, archetypal appearance of the dragon working by 
means of that secular power.? Erroneous, therefore, are all the explanations 
which, instead of the concrete reference to the Roman Empire, either intro- 
duce extraneous specialties, or keep to indefinite generality.° The latter 
applies especially also against Hofm.,® Hengstenb., and Ebrard, who by a 
false explanation of properly adduced passages, xvii. 9 and ch. xiil., and by 
an incorrect comparison of the ten horns of the dragon with the ten (still 
future) kings, xvii. 12, understand the seven dragon-heads of the seven phases 
of the godless secular power; but the ten horns, which (improperly) are 
regarded as on the seven heads, of the tenfold division of that ultimate sec- 
ular power. Among the older allegorists, Calov. has correctly received the 
reference as made to Rome, but perverted it by not explaining the seven 
cr rowned dragon-heads from the relations of the imperial succession,’ but by 
regarding them as designations of the seven forms of government received 
in the entire history of Rome.§ The corresponding original form of the 
dragon must also be understood according to the standard, derived from chs. 
xiii. and xvii., of the beast in the service of the dragon, through which the 
Roman secular government with its emperors is symbolized. _The ten horns 
correspond to ten personal rulers, who as emperors stand within the horizon 
of the prophet as possessors of the Roman Empire: (1) Augustus, (2) Tibe- 
rius, (3) Caligula, (4) Claudius, (5) Nero, (6) Galba, (7) Otho, (8)Vitellius, 
(9) Vespasian, (10) Titus. Thus also in xiii. 1 the ten horns of the beast, 
each of which bears a diadem, are meant; but in other respects the same 
fundamental view in chs. xiii. and xvii. is not applied and carried out with 
entire uniformity. The idea that one of the seven heads is mortally 
wounded, but again healed, applies indeed to the beast of ch. xiii., but not 
to the dragon; and both descriptions, chs. xii. and xiii., are distinguished 
from the statement of ch. xvii. especially by the fact that in the former a 
genuine emperor, the last possessor of the Roman Empire, and ten kings 
still to come, who are distinguished throughout from those indicated by the 
ten horns of chs. xii. and xiii., come within the sphere of the prophecy ; 
while, on the other hand, ch. xvii. makes no further reference to that which 
is designated in ch. xiii. by the mortal wound of the one head, than by 
the inequality, common to all three chapters, between the number éen of the 


1 Cf. Dan. vii. 7. 

2 Cf. xiii. 1, xvii. 9 sqq. 

3 Cf. Grot., Wetst., Ew. 

4 N. de Lyra: “ Khosroo, the Persian king, 
hostile to Christianity, is the seventh head; 
the six others are vassal kings, the ten horns, 
divisions of the army.” Cf. also Coccej., 
Beng., ete. 

5 Beda: ‘* The devil armed with the power 
of the earthly kingdom. The seven heads = all 
his kings; the ten horns = the whole king- 
dom.”’ 


6 “ΤῊ Lamb had seven horns and seven 
eyes; the dragon has seven heads as a sign 
that his power is not indivisible; but the num- 
ber of the powers into which his kingdom is 
dispersed is that of divine possibility. But his 
horns, i.e., the instruments of his strength, are 
ten, according to the number of human possi- 


bility.””. Weiss: U. Z7rf., ii. p. 349. 
7 Cf. xvii. 10, xiii. 3. 3° 
8 1. Kings. 2. Consuls, 8. Decemviri. 4. 


Military tribunes. 5. Dictators. 6. Czsars. 
7. Odoacer, or even the Roman pontiffs. 


CHAP. XII. 3, 4. 3839 


horns and seven of the heads. The seven heads are expressly designated as 
seven kings, i.e., emperors; John also says that the sixth is present.! This 
peculiar relation between the number “ten” of the emperors and “seven ” 
of the emperors, can only have the meaning which is indicated in another 
way also by the healed mortal wound, viz., that only with seven wearers of 
the diadem is the actual and true possession of the government found, — 
according to which a horn is to be regarded as on each of the seven heads 
of the dragon (and of the beast, xiii. 1),2—-while three among the ten 
wearers of the diadem, viz., the three chiefs, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, by 
their rebellion possessed only an ‘uncertain and, as it were, unsettled im- 
perial power.” The three horns, which recall these three usurpers, are on 
one of the seven heads neither in the dragon nor the beast. Where they 
are to be regarded, is not to be inferred in the same way from the idea of 
the forms of the dragon and the beast as the position of the seven (crowned, 
xiii. 1) horns on the seven (crowned, xii. 3) heads; if John himself had had 
a precise view of the position of those three horns, he might have regarded 
them — corresponding to the historical condition — as between the fifth and 
the sixth crowned heads. —x«ai 7 οὐρὰ, κιτ., By a highly dramatic stroke 
John portrays che track of the dragon, as by moving his dreadful tail hither 
and thither, he tore away a large (the third, viii. 7 sq.) part of the stars of 
heaven, and cast them down to earth. An undoubted adumbration of this 
description is Dan. viii. 10, where a horn that grew up to heaven cast down 
the stars. But in John the dragon appears ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, like the woman, ver. 
1; the more readily suggested, therefore, is the conception, that while in an 
eager rage he lashes about his tail, it casts down from heaven the stars 
which it strikes.4 An attempt at false allegorizing lies in this feature of the 
description, in the fact that the seven heads, etc., have certainly a precise 
figurative reference; but the circumstance already that the numerical state- 
ment τὸ τρίτον, ver. 4, is to be taken only schematically, while the numbers 
ver. 3 are to be taken with literal accuracy, gives the description another 
character. The allegorical explanations offered® could be only arbitrary 
and fluctuating, because they depend entirely upon the error that they seek 
for a definitely ascribed prophetic thought, where the text gives only the 
expressive feature of a poetical description; a feature, however, which is im- 
portant and characteristic in the entire presentation of the dragon, because 
thereby, in a way corresponding to the nature of dragons ® and the visionary 


1 xvii. 10. 

2 The diadems are found, with the dragon, 
on the heads; with the beast, on the horns; 
corresponding in the one place to the number 
seven of actual emperors, and in the other to 
the number ten of all possessors of the govern- 
ment. 

8 Cf. Sueton., Vesp., i. 

4 Cf. Eichh., Ew. 

5 Of., e.g., Beda: “ It indicates the strength 
and malice of the enemy, who by deceitful 
arts, as though with his tail, cast down an 
innumerable part of angels or men.” Aret.: 
* The tail is the end of time—the Papacy, for 


to this the Roman Empire at length degener- 
ated.’ Vitr.: ‘The devil, through the emper- 
ors of Rome, persecutors of the faith, caused 
the teachers of the gospel to be disturbed.” 
In like manner, Grot., who refers the ovpa to 
Simon Magus, who led astray the third part, 
not only of Christian people, but also of the 
people. Calov., Beng., Stern, etc.: ‘* The vic- 
tory of earthly rulers.”’ Ebrard, etc.: ‘*‘ The 
seduction of the angels.” The best still, De 
Wette: *‘ Violence perpetrated in the kingdom 
of light.’’ 

6 «ς Dragons have their power, not in their 
teeth, but in their tails’’ (Solin, 30, in Wetst.). 


340 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


locality (ἐν τ. οὐρανῷ), the rage and eagerness of the devil appearing as a 
dragon are made visible. — The dragon has in view, above all things, the 
child who is about to be born of the woman; he puts himself} before 
the travailing woman, in order that, when she have given birth, he may 
devour the child. . 

Vy. 5,6. The child is born, but rescued; the woman also flees. — υἱὸν 
ἄρσεν. ‘The expression, without regard to its peculiar incorrectness,? reminds 
us of the 13! 13, Jer. xx. 15,8 but is still more emphatic in the prominence 
given the male sex of the child, since the grammatical reason, rendering 
possible the harsh agreement of the masc. υἱόν and the neut. ἄρσεν, lies in the 
fact that the ἄρσεν appears as a sort of apposition: “a son, a male.” The 
intention of this emphasis, which De Wette improperly denies, is not that of 
designating the child as victor over the dragon,* but ® points to what is added 
concerning the child immediately afterwards; ὃς μέλλει ποιμ., x.7.A. These 
words taken from Ps. ii. 9 (LXX.), which are referred also to Christ in xix. 
15, make it indubitable that the child born of the woman is the Messiah; & 
but the designation of Christ by these words of the Messianic Psalm is in 
this passage Τ the most appropriate and significant, since the fact is made 
prominent that this child just born is the one who with irresistible power 
will visit in judgment the antichristian heathen. By the words of the Psalm, 
John, therefore, designates the Lord as the ἐρχόμενον, who, as is especially 
kept in view by ch. xii., will also come with his iron rod upon the Gentile- 
Roman antichrist. As, therefore, John by the words of the Psalm desig- 
nates the child in a way completely corresponding to the fundamental idea 
of the entire Apoc., and points to the ultimate end in the Messianic judg- 
ment, he at the same time discloses the reason why Satan lays snares chiefly 
for the child, and then also for the woman and believers; and why especially 
the Gentile-Roman empire — whose insignia the dragon wears, and which is 
the means of his wrath — persecutes believers in Christ in the manner de- 
picted further in what follows.’ Thus the designation of the child shows 
the significance of the entire vision, ch. xii., in its relation to what follows. 
The result, however, is also that all the expositors who regard the child born 
of the woman as any thing else than the Messiah, and that, too, in his con- 
crete personality, miss the surest standpoint for the exposition of the entire 
ch. xii., and with this the correct standpoint for the comprehension of ch. 
xiii. sqq. This applies especially in opposition to all those who, however 
much they diverge in details, yet agree in the fundamental error that they 
regard the child as Christ, only in a certain metonymical sense, by under- 
standing it properly, speaking of Christ living in believers, and thus of 
believers themselves. Thus Beda: “The Church is always, though the 


1 Concerning the natural presupposition ly- 4 «ς Victor over the devil who had conquered 
ing in the ἕστηκεν, οἷ. Plin., H. W., viii. 3: “It the woman” (Beda). 
propels its body, not by manifold bending, as 5 Cf. Beng., Hengstenb., etc. 
do other serpents, but by walking high and + 6 De Wette, Rinck, Hengstenb., Ebrard, 
erect, in the midst ’’ (Wetst.). etc. 

2 See Critical Notes. 7 As also xix. 15. 


3 LXX.: ἄρσην, without vids. 8 xii. 17, xiii. 1 sqq. 


CHAP. XII. 5, 6. 341 


dragon opposes, bringing forth Christ.” — “The Church daily gives birth to 
a church, ruling in Christ the world.” Cf. C. a Lap., Aret., Calov., who 
gives the more specific definition: “The bearing of the woman” refers to 
the “profession of the Nicene faith, and the sons born to God by the Church 
in the midst of the persecutions of the Gentiles,” Beng., Stern., etc. Grot. 
also: “ The dispersed from Judaea, among whom were Aquila and Apollos, 
instruments of the catholic Church, brought forth many of the Roman people 
unto Christ.” Eichh., Heinr., Herd., etc., who regard the child as a sym- 
bol of the Christian Church, proceeding from the Jewish, belong here. — καὶ 
ἡρπάσθη. The expression makes clear how, by a sudden withdrawal,} the 
child is delivered from the immediately threatening danger.?— πρὸς τὸν θεὸν 
καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. It is made emphatic not only that the child is 
drawn up to God for preservation, but also that this is the surest, and at the 
same time most exalted, place of refuge. ‘The allegorical interpretation ‘of 
the second half of ver. 5, by those who do not acknowledge in the child the 
Messiah himself, must have an entirely reverse result. N. de Lyra? contents 
himself with the idea of the “deliverance of the Church;” even to him 
Beda’s interpretation* may have been too perplexing. The rationalistic 
expositors also, who share with these churchly expositors the fundamental 
error concerning the τέκνον, uselessly amend one another. De Wette, 
Hengstenb., Ebrard, etc., have referred the ἡρπάσθη, κιτ.λ., to the Lord’s 
ascension, and, according to this, understand by the persecution on the part 
of the dragon ὃ “all that was done on the part of the Jews against Christ 
until his death,” 7 the entire state of humiliation, to which the state of exal- 
tation even to God’s throne has succeeded. But the feeling concerning . 
this, that this conception does not correspond with the character of the 
statement in the text, has asserted itself in Hengstenb. Before the xa? 
ἡρπάσθη, he says, it is to be remembered that the dragon continues his perse- 
cution, as, according to the gospel history, it has occurred from the tempta- 
tion until the death on the cross.? “This addition is urged by ver. 4: for 
how was the one, who, already before the birth, stood before the woman, in 
order to devour her child as soon as it was born, not to incessantly continue 
his persecution? and it is required by the ‘and it was caught up.’” But 
neither this addition, nor the exposition based thereon, is allowable in 
accordance with the text; for the textual idea is that the child immediately 
after birth is caught up to God’s throne. This ideal representation is related 
to the actual history of Christ, just as the ideal allusion to the judgment 
impending upon Jerusalem, xi. 1 sqq., to the actually future fact; the fact 


1 Acts xxiii. 10; Jude 23. 

2 Vitr., Hengstenb. 

8 Cf. Aret., C. a Lap., ete. 

4 “Godlessness cannot apprehend Christ 
spiritually born in the mind of hearers, for the 
reason that the same one reigns with the Father 
in heaven, who also has raised us, and made 
us sit in heavenly places with Christ.’’ 

5 Cf. Eichh.: “ΤῊ Christian Church hav- 
. ing proceeded from Judaism received, under 


God’s protection, its growth and increase; ” 
with Grot.: ‘Simon seduced so many at Rome 
that a Christian people no longer appeared 
there. They who do not appear with men are 
said to be with God.” 

6 Cf. John xiv. 30. 

7 De Wette. 

8 Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

9 Cf. Luke iv. 13: ἄχρι καιροῦ, and John 
xiv. 30. 


342 . THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


as such is as little prophesied there, as in this passage the proper history of 
Christ and its precise epochs are mentioned, but in both cases the histori- 
cal reality serves only for the firm concrete basis of the idea, which is the 
main point of consideration. No historical fact corresponds to the propheti- 
cal-ideal representation of the dragon, which watches for the birth of the 
Messiah, in order to immediately devour the child; but the snares on the 
part of Herod, and the murder of the infants at Bethlehem, may have given 
an occasion for the conception of the view, whereby John figuratively repre- 
sents the mortal enmity of Satan to the Messiah. No fact in the history of 
Christ corresponds to the ἡρπάσθη τὸ τέκνον, κ.τ.1. ; but the fact of the Lord’s 
ascension offers, as it were, the colors with which to paint the ideas as to 
how inexpressibly glorious is the preservation of the child from Satan, and 
how completely the latter, with his persecutions, is confounded. Both sub- 
jects under consideration here, Satan’s mortal hatred to the Lord (and, there- 
fore to his saints, xii. 17, xiii. 1 sqq.), and, in connection with this, Satan’s 
inability to touch the Lord (and, accordingly, the final judgment on every 
thing antichristian, and the glorification of believers), are here placed in 
view. 

What, after the withdrawal of the child, is further attempted on the part 
of the dragon, or what now possibly occurs with it itself (cf. ver. 7. sqq.), 
cannot be properly stated (ver. 7 sqq.) without giving an account first of the 
fate of the woman. This occurs in ver. 6, which briefly anticipates ? what is 
described more minutely in ver. 14, and that too on the basis of ver. 7 sqq.;8 
for not until the dragon, with his wrath directed above all things against the 
child itself, is completely confounded, does he turn against the woman, ver. 
13 sqq., and when she flees, then against the rest of her seed, ver. 17, in order 
to vent against them, as believers in Christ, that rage with which he could 
not reach the Lord himself and the woman. But what instruments the 
dragon employs, in order to attack believers with the hatred which is, in 
fact, directed against the Lord himself, is shown immediately afterwards in 
xiii. 1 sqq. 

ὅπου --- ἐκεῖ. Cf. ver. 14, iii. 8, vil. 2. — ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπο τ. 6. “on the part 
of God,” divinely. Cf Winer, p. 347 866. --- ἵνα ἐκεῖ τρέφωσιν αὐτὴν, κ.τ.λ. 
The final clause depends upon the #row. ἀπὸ τ. 6.; the ἐκεῖ refers, therefore, to 
the place in the wilderness; cf. the parallel words, ver. 14 (εἰς τ. τόπον αὐτης, 
ὅπου τρέφεται ἐκεῖ, k.T.A.), Where also the personally fixed τρέφεται (86. 9 γυνῆ) 
explains the meaning of the τρέφωσιν αὐτὴν taken without a definite subject.* 
See, in general, also in reference to the schematic determination of time, on 
ver. 14. | 

Vv. 7-12. Not only is it in vain that the dragon lays snares for the child 
(ver. 5), but he is now cast down to earth by Michael and his angels, who 
begin a battle with him and his angels, —a crisis which, in its salutary sig- 
nificance for believers, is celebrated by a loud voice in heaven giving praise, 
but which also, as the cry of woe indicates, makes the whole earth the scene 


1 Against Auberlen, p. 277, etc. 8. Against Ebrard. See on ver. 14. 
2 Vitr., Ewald, De Wette, Hofm., Heng- 4 Cf. x.11; Luke xii. 20. 
stenb., Auberlen. 


CHAP. XII. 7-12. 343 


for the rage of the dragon cast upon it. — καὶ ἐγένετο πόλεμος ἐν τ. ovp, The 
conception that the dragon pursued the child even to the throne of God 
(ver. 5), and that this is the cause of the struggle which arose,! not only has 
no foundation in the context, but is also inconsistent with what is said in 
ver. 5, because the «. ἡρπάσθη declares that the child, by its being caught up 
to God and God's throne, is completely secured from any further pursuit on 
the part of the dragon. The idea, also, that the dragon also made only the 
attempt to seize the child from God's own hand, is in itself not possible. 
But in the struggle which now arises, it is not Satan, but Michael, who 
appears as taking the offensive. After the dragon did what is described in 
vv. 3, 4,—and after the child was in complete security,—not only the 
dragon who had attempted the attack on the child, but also his angels, are 
driven out of heaven. The very circumstance that in ver. 7 the discourse 
is not only concerning the dragon, but also concerning his adherents, points 
to the fact, that the bold undertaking of the dragon (ver. 3 sq.), the most 
extreme to which his antichristian nature brings him, furnishes Michael and 
his army of angels the immediate occasion, on their part, for laying hold 
upon the dragon and all his angels, and casting them out of heaven. —év τῷ 
ovpavé. For at this place the dragon is; cf. ver. 3. Every allegorical inter- 
pretation? brings with it a confusion of the context in details, and as a 
whole. Cf. also ver. 8.—6 Μιχαὴλ. The opinion of Vitringa, urgently 
advocated by Hengstenb., that Michael is not an angel (according to Dan. 
x. 13, xii. 1, the guardian angel of the O. T. people of God, according to 
Jude 9 an archangel), but Christ himself, or, as Hengstenb. prefers to say, 
the Logos, miscarries —even apart from Jude 9, where the express designa- 
tion, ὁ ἀρχάγγελος, according to Hengstenb., is as little a proof against the 
divinity of Michael, as the declaration of the Lord (John xiy. 28) testifies 
against the homoousia of the Son—by its being altogether impossible to 
regard Michael (ver. 7) and the child (ver. 5) as one and the same person. 
In this passage, also, Michael the archangel? appears as the leader of the 
angelic army (καὶ οἱ dyy. αὐτου), with which he contends for the Messiah and 
his kingdom. — τοῦ πολεμῆσαι μετὰ τ. δρώκ., «.7.A. Just as undoubted as is this 
reading according to the MSS. at hand, is its obscurity in a grammatical 
respect; since the gen. infinitive τοῦ πολεμῆσαι, in connection with the words 
6 Mix. καὶ οἱ dyy. αὐτου, is without all analogy in the Greek of the LXX. and 
the N. T. The seeming parallel, Acts x. 25, is distinguished from this pas- 
sage by the very fact that there a proper grammatical reason is present,* 
while in this passage the connection of the gen. infinitive τοῦ πολεμῆσαι with 
the subj. ὁ Mcy., «.7.4., admits of no grammatical explanation whatever; for 
neither the analogy of passages like Isa. xliv. 14, Jos. ii. 5, is applicable 
where the inf., introduced by 7, stands in definite dependence upon a pre- 


1 Eicbh., Herd., De Wette, Stern. 3 Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hofm., Ebrard, 
2 Beda: “In the Church, in which he says Auberlen, ete. 
that Michael with his angels fights against the 4 As the genitive infinitive clause, in which 


devil, because, by praying and ministering his the subject enters as an accus. (τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν 
aid, he contends, according to God’s will, for τὸν Πέτρον), depends upon the expressly im- 
the wandering Church.”’ personal ἐγένετο. 


344 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


ceding idea, and where the LXX. also place a finite tense,} nor is the supply- 
ing of the words “had war,” upon which, then, the τοῦ πολεμ. is regarded as 
dependent, allowable. If it were possible from the ἐγένετο πόλεμος to supply 
an ἐγένοντο before ὁ Muy. καὶ οἱ dyy. abr., or if the ἐγένετο dare be regarded as 
extending to ὁ Mvy.,* the τοῦ πολεμῆσαι would then be correctly added.6 But 
that twofold conception is so doubtful as to constrain us to the opinion that 
our text is defective or corrupt. As a sensible conjecture, the Elz. read- 
ing, ἐπολέμησαν, commends itself, since the τοῦ before the infin. may be re- 
peated from the preceding αὐτοῦ, and the change of the πολεμῆσαι into the 
form of a finite tense is without difficulty; but if the τοῦ πολεμῆσαι of the 
MSS. be correct, —and its difficulty favors it,—a finite tense immediately 
before, upon which this τοῦ πολεμ. depends, may have fallen out, possibly 
ἀνέστησαν ΟΥ̓ ἦλθαν, or the like, since the essential meaning is manifestly that 
which the versions express.7. The conjecture is most probable, that the 
words πόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ are nothing but a marginal note that has entered 
into the text, made in order to mark the noteworthy contents of the pas- 
sage ;8 if these words be regarded as absent, the connection of the τοῦ πολ. 
with the καὶ ἐγένετο 6 Muy. κ. of ἄγγ. αὐτοῦ does not seem difficult, since the geni- 
tive of the telic infinitive 9 correctly depends upon the idea of the movement 
lying in the éyevero.° This conjecture has in its favor, that the reception 
into the text of the doubtful words πόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is incomparably more 
probable than the falling-out of a finite tense before τοὺ πολ.; it is also to be 
considered, that, as in what follows, the ἐπολέμησε is formed only according 
to the chief subject ὁ dp., the same phraseology is probable also in the first 
clause. Moreover, while it would have been difficult for John to have writ- 
ten 6 Muy. καὶ οἱ dyy. αὐτοῦ ἐπολέμησε, --- for the sing., after καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὑτοῦ had 
preceded, would have been unallowable in the style of the Apoc., and be- 
sides, in connection with the following, ἐπολέμηδε appears to be still more 
monotonous than the ἐπολέμησαν even of the Rec., —the ἐγένετο, on the other 
hand, in immediate connection with ὁ My. καὶ οἱ ἄγγ- meets all requirements, 
and commends itself especially by the fact that it gives the meaning that 
the attack proceeded from Michael and his angels. 

Ver. 8. Properly, after the full contents of the subject ὁ dp. καὶ of ayy. αὐτοῦ 
have preceded, the plur. form ἔσχυσαν 1! is now introduced, although the sing. 
ἐπολέμησε (ver. 7) stood in express relation only to the chief subject ὁ δράκων. 
The sense of the καὶ οὐκ ἔσχυσαν is like the Heb. phrase 93° x9, Gen. xxxii. 26; 12 


1 Against Ew.: ‘It must be fought by 
them.’’ Bleek, Ziill. 

2 Hengstenb. 

8 Cf. Meyer on Acts x. 25. 

4 Cf. Liicke, p. 454. 

5 Cf. Winer, p. 304. 

6 Liicke, De Wette, Winer, p. 307. 

7 Vulg.: Praeliabantur. 

8 Nevertheless, e.g., Andreas — who, more- 
over, has the suspicious words in the text — 
gives the section (vv. 7-12), the title: περὶ τοῦ 
πολέμου τῶν ἀγγέλων καὶ τών δαιμόνων, K.T.A. 


How very usual were brief declarations in the 
MSS. concerning the contents, is extraordina- 
rily manifest if the long series of lists of con- 
tents be read which occur in cod. δὲ in the Book 
of Acts. Cf. Nov. Text. Gr. ex Sin. Cod., ed. 
Tischendorf, Lips., 1865; P., lxxxii. A similar 
annotation is, e.g., Isa. xxx. 6. 

9. Cf. Acts iii. 2, 12. 

10 Cf. Acts xx. 16,-xxi. 17, xxv. 15; Luke x. 
82; John vi. 25, 19. 

il Cf., directly afterwards, τόπος --- αὐτῶν. 

12 LXX.: ov δύναται πρὸς αὐτόν. 


CHAP. XII. 9. 845 


Ps. xiii. 5;1 Gen. xxx. 8:3 “They could not prevail.” --- οὐδὲ τόπος εὑρέθη 
αὐτῶν ἔτι ἐν τῷ obpavd. The οὐδέ 8 puts a second negative expression by the 
side of and opposite to the first, so that the meaning of the connection can 
be explained: Not only the dragon and his angels could not prevail, but he 
could no longer maintain his place in heaven: he is conquered in heaven 
and cast out of heaven. This idea Hengstenb. himself indicates in an 
entirely rationalistic way, by explaining, according to the accepted funda- 
mental statement: “Every thing mighty is placed in heaven,” as follows: 
“That Satan could not maintain himself in heaven, simply means that his 
power is broken, — broken, according to ver. 11, by the blood of Christ, 
whereby the forgiveness of sins is obtained, and thus his most dangerous 
weapon is wrested from Satan.” On the other hand, a preposterous dog- 
matizing on this verse appears in Hofm., Ebrard, and Auberlen, who here 
find the presupposition, that until then, Satan with his angels have actually 
had their place in heaven, make a comparison with the coming-forth of 
Satan in Jobi., as though it were an historical fact, and, at the same time, 
explain from Zech. iii., that the business of Satan in heaven is that of accus- 
ing. But this idea, impossible in itself ® to considerate Christian feeling, is 
gathered from the text only by the ascription of objective reality to that 
which is indeed improperly regarded a pure fiction,’ yet to which only the 
reality of the vision belongs. The real truth on which the visionary con- 
templation of the discomfiture of the dragon, after the withdrawal of the 
Messianic child, depends, is—as may be explained from ver. 10, but in no 
way from ver. 11*— the Christian fundamental doctrine of the conquest of 
Satan and his kingdom by Christ, the Redeemer and Lord of the kingdom 
of heaven; but the subject treated in this passage (as also in vv. 3-6) is no 
doctrinal definition, but only the illustration, extending to the deepest foun- 
dation, of the rage of the arch-fiend against believers. Against them he 
turns (ver. 17 sqq.), after he has pursued in vain the Lord himself (ver. 4 sqq.) 
and the woman; the earth becomes the theatre of his wrath, after he has 
been cast thither from heaven, and that, too, as one vanquished, so that 
even believers can overcome the already overcome enemy, let him rage as 
he may. The description, vv. 7,8 (and 9), portrays an actual, historical 
or superhistorical, fact, past or entirely future, which was revealed to John 
by his vision, no more than vy. 8-6 describe actual facts as such; but also 
in this passage the form of the vision in the mind of the seer seems to be 
morally conditioned by his remembrance of the fact, firmly established in 
biblical revelation, of the overthrow of the fallen angels. In itself, and as 
such, this fact has nothing to do with the present connection; but in the 
mind of the seer, the particular conception which he here expresses clothes 
itself in the form of that fact. [See Note LXVIII. (4), p. 359.] 

Ver. 9. καὶ ἐβλήθη. After the circumstantial designation of the subject 


1 LXX.: ἴσχυσα mpos αὐτόν. Auberlen: During ‘ the entire world-period.” 
*LXX.: καὶ ἠδυνάσθην. Ebrard. 6 Which, especially in Ebrard, 
3 So Winer also (pp. 457, 572) writes. appears utterly inconceivable. 

4 Cf. Isa. xiv. 12. 7 Against Heinr. and other rationalists. 


5 Until the ascension of Christ (ver. 5). 8 Against Hengstenb. 


346 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


has been given, the verb is repeated, and then receives also the more accu- 
rate determination, ἐβλ. εἰς τὴν γῆν. The aggregation of designations describe 
the nature and activity of the enemy as completely as possible; which is 
appropriate for the reason that thereby it is, on the one hand, indicated 
what believers have to expect from this enemy now working against them 
on earth,! and, on the other hand, it is said that this enemy, even though his 
hostile activity be so various, yet is already a thoroughly conquered adver- 
sary.2 First stands the designation ὁ δράκων ὁ μέγας, as that of the subject 
given by ver. 3 5644.» with which the other designations are connected as 
appositives: ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, with an allusion to Gen. iii.,2 whence also the 
rabbinical expressions *1D7P WNIN and JWI WNHIN4 are derived. —6 
καλούμενος διάβολος, x.7.A. The διάβολος stands here with the ὁ καλούμενος in a 
like manner as an appellative, just as in xx. 3 with ὅς ἐστιν; while, on the 
other hand, the ὁ σατανᾶς, because of the art.,> appears in both places as a 
proper noun, like ὁ διάβολος also in, e.g., xx. 10. The definition added to ὁ 
σατ., ViZ., ὁ πλανῶν τ. οἰκ. ὅλ., Which is not altogether intelligible from what is 
said in ver. 1, but refers to the antichristic activity of Satan ® described in 
ch. xili., shows us on its part that the entire present account has its peculiar 
intention and meaning, not so much in itself, as rather in its connection 
with what follows." 

Vv. 10-12. A loud voice in heaven 8 celebrates the victory which has 
just occurred before the eye of the seer, over the adversary of Christ and 
his kingdom (vv. 10-12), as one in which believers also are to participate, 
ver. 10; but this voice proclaims, also, woe to the whole earth, because the 
dragon cast out upon it will make use of the short time given him for his 
wrath (ver. 12b).— ἄρτι, “ now,” since the victory over the dragon, ver. 8 56.» 
as also the conclusion from ver. 10, ὅτι ἐβλ., x.7.A., once again expressly 
emphasizes. —éyévero ἡ σωτηρία, «.7.A. Incorrectly, Hofm.: “God and his 
Anointed have established their salvation and their power.” Also De Wette, 
who properly refers to xi. 15, is incorrect in his remark: There is with 
respect to the σωτηρία a sort of zeugma or mingling of thoughts; the sen- 
tence, “ Salvation is God,” vii. 10, xix. 1, becomes in this connection: “ Now 
it is shown that the salvation is God’s.” De Wette, as also those who have 
wished to change the meaning of ἡ σωτηρία, has correctly felt that it is just 
the idea of the σωτηρία whereby the mode of statement in this passage 
appears more difficult than in the entirely similar passage, xi. 15. But pre- 
cisely as the δύναμις and the βασιλεία, so also the σωτηρία, i.e., salvation in the 
specific Christian sense, — not “ victory,” ® which σωτηρία does not mean, — is 
beheld with complete objectivity. The salvation, like the kingdom, the 
strength, and the power, has now become our God’s, since the dragon in 
heaven has been overcome; now his salvation, his power, his kingdom, are 
no longer attacked and injured by the violence of the dragon up to this time 
unbroken, and his power not-yet overcome. This is the precise mode of the 


1 Cf. ver. 12 sqq. 2 Cf. ver. 10 sqq. 6 Cf. especially xiii. 14, xx. 8, 10. 
3 Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 3. 7 Ver. 17 sqq. 
4 Cf. Schdttgen. 8 Cf. xi. 15, 12. 


5 Which Ew. incorrectly wants to remove. 9 Eichh., Ew. ii. 


CHAP. XII. 10-12. 847 


presentation, along with which the other view also co-exists, that it is essen- 
tially and alone God’s salvation, power, and kingdom which God seizes, or 
which becomes God’s. The individual ideas are very significant; ἡ σωτηρία 
is the salvation, not only inasmuch as saints are thereby delivered,? — this 
reference is necessary, nevertheless is too narrow, — but ® the sum total of all 
righteousness, blessedness, and holiness, as they have been prepared for the 
creature by God through his Christ, the σωτῇρ, but have been prevented from 
reaching the same by the dragon, the antichrist. The δύναμις, the power of 
God, has been manifested in his victory over the dragon; * the βασιλεία, 
“where God’s majesty shows itself,”’5is the royal glory of God,* which is 
peculiar to him as the possessor of unconditioned power, and which he dis- 
plays especially in creation and the imparting of salvation.? The ἐξουσία is 
ascribed to God’s Christ, because it is the definite, supreme power 8 peculiar 
to God’s Christ as such. The reason for the ascription of praise, ἄρτι 
ἐγένετο, k.7.A., lies in what is reported in vv. 8,9; for the entire undertaking 
of the dragon ?° was nothing else than the truly antichristian attempt to frus- 
trate the σωτηρία, to bid defiance to the δύναμις of God, to oppose his βασιλεία, 
and to bring to naught the ἐξουσία of Christ, ay, Christ himself. From a 
new side, not at all touched in ver. 3 sqq., and also very remote from that 
presentation, is the overcome adversary designated by the appellation ὁ κατήγωρ 
τ. ἀδελφ. ἧμ., κιτιΔ. The form of the word is Hebraistic: Narvp. Precisely 
analogous is the rabbinical designation of Michael as the 1)3°20, the συνῆγωρ, 
i.e., συνήγορος, advocate, of the godly.14 In the later Greek there is also the 
analogous form διάκων for διάκονος. 12 ---- τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν. The brethren of those 
by whom, in a loud voice, the song of praise is raised, are undoubtedly 
believers in the earthly life, for only they could be exposed to the accusation 
on the part of Satan; but an inference as to the designation of the heavenly 
persons who speak of believing men as their brethren is not to be made: it 
can in no way be decided as to whether the adoring voice proceeds froin the 
angels,!? or from the twenty-four elders,!* or perhaps from the already per- 
fected saints,’ — who, however, would not be regarded as saints only of the 
O. T.16 The idea of a perpetual!” accusation of the godly on the part of 
Satan,!§ which occurs neither in the N. nor the O. T. as an express doctrinal 
article, is derived and formulated by Jewish theology from Zech. iii. and 
Job i., 11.149 The N. T. contains an allusion to that conception only so far as 
the names ordinarily used in the N. T., ὁ διάβολος and ὁ σατανᾶς, also ὁ ἀντικεῖ- 


1 Cf. (xi. 17) the τ. δύν. cov in connection 
with the εἴληφας. 

2 Beng. Cf. Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

8 Cf. the similar passages vii. 10, xix. 1. 


ἐξ. is used with respect to definite supreme 
authority lying in a commission, office, etc. 

10 Ver. 3. sqq. 

11 Cf, Schéttg. 


4 Cf. Beng. 12 Cf. Wetst. 13 Beda, etc. 

5 Beng. 14 Ew. i., ete. 

ext ΤΠ, ΤΥ 15 Ew. ii., according to vi. 4 sqq., vii. 9 sqq 
% @f..i. 6,.v. 10. 16 Beng. 


8 Cf. xiii. 2, where ἐξ. stands for the definite 
supreme power existent in a commission, oflice, 


17 ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός. Cf. iv. 8. 
18 Sohar Levit., p.43: “6 always stands 


etc. 
9 Cf. xiii. 2, where ἐξ, is with δύναμις; vi. 
8, ix. 3, xi. 6, xiv. 18, xvii. 19, xx. 6, where 


as accuser before the king of Israel” (in 
Schottg.). 
19 Cf. examples in Schottg. 


348 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


μενος, according to their original significance, point back to the same. In the 
latter circumstance, sufficient scriptural ground for receiving the accusing 
activity of Satan in dogmatical seriousness can be acknowledged only if the 
Scriptures were elsewhere to show expressly that they advocate such definite 
sense for that naine already firmly fixed. But this occurs neither in Jobi., 
ii., nor in Zech. iii. ; for the former mythically fashioned passage does not 
treat at all of a peculiar accusation, while, according to the nature of the 
subject, objective reality does not pertain to the vision of the prophet. 
Scripture, therefore, does not give us a doctrinal article, which would be 
just as incomprehensible to Christian thought, as the idea of an actual 
abode of the devil and his angels in heaven.! But as there, so also here, 
every allegorizing interpretation of the text is to be rejected,? and it is to be 
decided, according to the analogy of Scripture, that the idea of a perpetual 
accusation of believers by Satan, derived in its concrete formation from 
Jewish theology, makes no claim of objective truth, but is to be regarded as 
a point of the prophetic conception founded in the individuality of John. 
Ver. 11. Kai αὐτοὶ ἐνίκησαν αὐτὸ. That the airo refers to τ, ἀδελφῶν ju, 
and, therefore, those accused by the dragon (6 xarny. αὐτούς, ver. 10), but 
not the angel Michael (ver. 7), are here represented as those who have con- 
quered ὃ the dragon, results not. only from the words in themselves, which do 
not allow an immediate reference of the αὐτοὶ to a subject in ver. 7, but also 
from the manner of the conflict and the victory indicated, which does not at 
all agree with what is described in ver. 7.4 From the identity of those 
accused in ver. 10, and contending in ver. 11, it does not follow, however, 
that the idea of ἐνίκησαν αὐτον is: “ They have won the case against him,” 
as Beng.® wishes; but the idea of the νικᾶν here is the same as everywhere 
in the Apoc., which regards every kind of temptation which Satan has pre- 
pared for believers as a mighty conflict,® and therefore every confirmation of 
faith as a victory over the arch-enemy.? On the fundamental conception, 
1 John ii. 13, 14, is to be compared, although, as the form, so also the refer- 
ence there is different. The perf. νενικήκατε τὸν πονηρόν describes the life of 
faith then existing in Christian young men, as having for its foundation 
the victory obtained over the wicked one by faith itself; the aor. ἐνίκησαν 
αὐτὸν, however, by placing the victory over Satan as a definite fact entirely 
in the past, is said by a prolepsis similar to that whereby, in vil. 9 sqq., 
believers are beheld in a proleptical vision after the victory has been won.® 
In fact, the ἐνίκησαν is applicable not until the conflict lasting unto death, 
requiring the surrender of life in fidelity to the cause,® is actually fought 


1 Cf. ver. 7 sqq. 

2 Against Beda: “He suggests both that 
they abuse prosperity, and in adversity do not 
have patience.” De Wette: ‘Satan is at the 
same time wicked lust and the bad conscience.” 

3 Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb., 
Ebrard. 

4 Cf. the closing words of ver. 11. 

5 Cf. Rom. iii. 4. 6 Cf. ver. 17. 

7 χν. 2. Cf., in general, the νικᾶν in the 
epistle, chs. ii., iii. 


8 When Klief. here opposes a prolepsis, this 
must be taken together with the fact, that, 
understanding the woman (ver. 1) as Chris- 
tianity of the last times, i.e., of believers men- 
tioned in ver. 11, purified by suffering, he finds 
in the entire vision a representation of actual 
circumstances and events of the end. In this 
sense, he considers, e.g., the victory of Michael 
(ver. 7) as the execution of the moral victory 
previously gained by believers (ver. 11). 

9 Cf. close of ver. 11. 


CHAP. XII. 11. 849 


through, and the garment washed in the blood of the Lamb? has been kept 
pure in spite of all the temptations and persecutions on the part of Satan. 
But although the worshippers know that the conflict against the dragon still 
in reality impends over their brethren on earth,? yet they can celebrate the 
victory of believers as one already gained, because the victory won over 
Satan in heaven? has rendered him an overcome enemy also to believers on 
earth. Since thus the victory still in fact to be won by believers — to which 
properly all the consolatory language of the Apoc. refers —is celebrated by 
these heavenly voices as already obtained, the strongest encouragement is 
given believers. Hence ver. 11 appears not as a “digression,’* but is in 
every respect appropriate. — διὰ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ dpviov, «.7.A, On account of the 
διά with the accus., the blood of the Lamb and the word of testimony of 
believers appears not as the means (διά with gen.), but as the reason or 
cause on account of which the victory is won. This form of the presenta- 
tion is no less suitable than the former;® but in the first member διὰ τὸ αἰμα 
τ. dpv., the latter corresponds much more accurately with the inner connec- 
tion, sustained by ver. 11, to what precedes. Entirely analogous is the 
relation in iii. 21 between the ὁ νικῶν, « 7.4., and the ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα, «.7.A, The 
victory of believers on earth is based upon the victory won over Satan in 
heaven; the peculiar truth, however, in what is reported from ver. 7 on, and 
in the closest connection with ver. 5, —that, viz., which, beneath the shell of 
the occurrences beheld, must be properly understood as the actual cause 
of the victory for believers on earth, —is Christ’s victory over Satan. This 
victory the Lamb has won over the dragon by shedding his blood. The 
blood of the Lamb is therefore the cause of the victory of believers.6 In 
the same way the statement is added: καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς μαρτυρίας αὐτων. 
Here we would expect the gen., because the testimony given by believers 
presents itself most simply as the means whereby they conquer. De Wette 
is inclined to assume this mode of representation by “a sort of zeugma,” 
which he tries to maintain in the διά. But the διά with the accus. has its 
complete justification, because the word of the testimony of believers, like 
the blood of the Lamb, can appear as the objective ground of their victory, 
since it is the word of the testimony given by believers with all fidelity even 
unto death,’ yet, also, at the same time, the word of such testimony as be- 
lievers have previously received, which they now have as the condition of 
their victory beyond and above themselves. Thus the word of testimony 
has also an objective side, according to which it appears, like the blood of 
the Lamb, as the ground, not as the means, of their victory; while, on the 
other hand, the blood of the Lamb can be considered the actual ground of 
the victory only when the subjective side, viz., the believing participation 
in this blood, or the being washed thereby,® is kept in mind. — καὶ οὐκ ἠγά- 


1 Cf. vii. 4. . apv.: * By Christianity established by Christ’s 
2 Cf. ver. 12, and, besides, ver. 17. death, which was also an example to them.” 

8 Ver. 7 sqq. 4 De Wette. 1 This is the meaning of the αὐτῶν with 
5 Against De Wette. τ᾿ A. το μαρτ. 

6 Utterly preposterously Ew. rationalizes by 8 Cf. ver. 17. 


remarking on the ἐνίκησαν avr, διὰ τ. αἷμα τ. 9 Cf. vii. 14,1. δ; Var. Lect. 


t 
350 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


anoev, «.7.A, The not loving their souls, i.e,, readiness to surrender life 
replacing ἄχρι davarov.1_ As faithful witnesses, therefore, they suffered death, 
and just by this, like the Lord himself, won the victory.? 

Ver. 12. Διὰ τοῦτο. We cannot regard the ground of joy for the heavens, 
and those dwelling therein (οἱ ἐν αὐτοῖς σκηνοῦντες are only those whose actual 
place of abode is the heavens, and who there, as the expression σκηνοῦν indi- 
cates, have glorious rest disturbed by no woe or conflict,? but not also believers 
on earth, as Hengstenb., by a false comparison with Phil. 111. 20, Eph. ii. 6, 
explains), to be both the casting of the dragon out of heaven (ver. 9), and 
the victory of believers (ver. 11),* but only the former; * for although ver, 11, 
in connection with ver. 10, proleptically celebrates the victory of earthly 
believers over the dragon, based upon the heavenly victory over the same, 
the affair is displayed here as it is in reality; to the heavenly beings alone 
belongs the pure joy, while woe is proclaimed to the whole earth and all its 
inhabitants, even to believers on earth; for just these have now to struggle 
even unto blood with the enraged dragon. — οὐαὶ τὴν γῆν, κιτΔ. The accus., 
which in Greek ® as well as in Latin occurs regularly in exclamations, is 
unusual here only so far as it stands with οὐαΐ, which is otherwise usually 
combined with the dat. — τῆν γὴν καὶ τὴν θὰλ. In opposition to the heavenly 
world,’ the entirety of the earthly world is designated, in connection with 
which there is no reference to the relation of the two particular parts as 
such; much less is any allegorical interpretation admissible.* — ὅτι κατέβη, 
κι. Reason for the cry of woe: the earth and sea are to be the theatre 
for the activity of the devil, now allotted to this sphere, who will give vent 
to his great wrath the more as he knows that he has only a brief time. 
Instead of the ἐβλήθη, a κατέβη naturally occurs here, because, as a dreadful 
activity of. the enraged enemy is portrayed, it is more appropriate that it 
should not be expressly marked that the descent of the enemy is involuntary. 
— ἔχων θυμὸν μέγαν. The great wrath belonging to the dragon because of his 
antichristic nature, he has shown already (ver. 4). By the overthrow de- 
scribed in ver. 7 sqq., this wrath can only be inflamed anew. To this is 
added the fact, that the dragon knows that only a short time is allowed him. 
To identify this ὀλίγον καιρόν with the 3} days mentioned in xvii. 11 “as the 
‘time of antichrist,”® is as arbitrary as the reckoning of Bengel, who takes 
“the short time,” as somewhat longer than the 3} times (ver. 14), i.e., equal 
to four times, or four times 2222 years, and regards the period from the 
year 947 to the year 1836. But in the meaning of the Apoc., the shortness 
of the time given Satan for his antichristian work on earth, depends simply 
upon the fact that “the time is at hand,” or that the Lord is soon coming 
to judge Satan together with his instruments.?° 

Vv. 18-17. The dragon, cast down to the earth, pursues first the woman 


1 Cf. ii. 105 Phil. ii. 8. 8 Against Beng., who understands here by 

ΟἿ 111... 91. 1. 18;-v.5;)-Vi. Os ‘¢ earth and sea,”? Asia and Europe. Cf. Heng- 

3 Cf. xiii. 6, vii. 15, xxi. 3. Beng., Ew., De stenb., who regards the sea as the sea of 
Wette. nations. 

4 Beng. 5 De Wette. 9 Ebrard. 

6 Cf. Matth., Ausfiihrl. Gramm., sec. 427. 10 Cf., in general, i. 8, xxii. 20; especially 


7 Cf. vii. 2 sq., v. 13. xvii. 11, xx. 1 sqq. 


CHAP. XII. 14. 961 
fleeing into the wilderness; but as she also, like the child (ver. 5), is deliy- 
ered from his snares, he turns to the conflict against the rest of her seed. 

Καὶ ὅτε εἶδεν. The dragon, finding himself cast upon the earth, must first 
perceive that thereby all his persecution of the child itself would become 
impossible; so he employs himself with pursuing (ἐδίωξε, aor.) the woman, 
just because she was the mother of that man-child.} 

Ver. 14. Already in the ἐδίωξε τὴν yur. (ver. 13), lies the presupposition 
afforded by the preceding account (ver. 6), concerning the flight of the 
woman; but now as the subject is properly concerning the fate of the woman, 
that which in ver. 6 is touched upon only in the main point, and by antici- 
pation, is expressly described. For ver. 14 does not speak of something 
entirely different from ver. 6,—as Ebrard thinks, who finds in ver. 6 the 
flight of the woman to heaven, i.e., the emblem of the dispersion of Israel 
on earth, but in ver. 14 the flight into the desert on earth, i.e., a miraculous 
deliverance of converted Israel on the actual earth; an interpretation which 
already fails, in that, in ver. 6, it takes heaven together with the wilder- 
ness misplaced therein by Ebrard figuratively, but in ver. 14, on the other 
hand, the earth (cf. ver. 13), in the proper sense, while the wilderness found 
in the same must again be understood figuratively, although it is manifest 
that all these local designations must, at all events, be understood in the 
same way, — but that ver. 14 gives the proper execution, and that, too, in 
the natural place of the connection, of that which was shortly before in ver. 6 
removed not without reason,? results from a comparison of the two verses. 
Precisely the same is the goal of the flight; the τόπος αὐτῆς in the wilderness 
is the place prepared there for the woman on God’s part;* the same in 
meaning are the schematic dates — for the determination of 33 times, ie., 
years (derived also, according to the expression,’ from the figurative passages, 
Dan. vii. 25, xii. 7), agrees with the 1,260 days (ver. 6);° the same, also, 
as to what is meant with the brief ἔφυγεν εἰς τ. ép., «.7.4., ver. 6, is the detailed 
description, ver. 14: καὶ éd60noav — iva πέτηται εἰς τ. ép., «.7.A. The certainty 
of the flight arranged by God depends upon the fact, that to the woman 
two wings of a great eagle are given, in order that —for such is the inten- 
tion of God in his deliverance, by causing wings to be given the woman — 
she might fly to the place prepared for her on God’s part in the wilderness. 
The idea itself has grown by the plastic art of the writer of the Apoc. from 
the figure given in Exod. xix. 4:6 As God formerly bore his people, when 
they fled from the Egyptians, on eagles’ wings, so, for her sure escape, a pair of 
eagle’s wings is given the woman fleeing from the dragon. Yet it dare not be 
said that the art. τοῦ ἀ., τοῦ wey., makes the eagle named here appear identical 
with that mentioned (Exod. xix. 4),° for in that figurative passage a par- 


1 ἥτις. Cf. the accurate use of this relative 
also, ix. 4, iii. 24, xix. 2, xx. 4. 

2 Beng., Ewald, De Wette, Hofm., Heng- 
stenb., Auberlen. 

8 The pres. τρέφεται, whose definite relation 
Ewald, Hofm., etc., try to invalidate, is just as 
intelligible as the pres. ἔχει; ver. 6. In the 
meaning of John, the woman is present in her 


place in the wilderness; there she remains 
concealed during the entire time of trouble for 
believers (cf. ver. 17), which continues for just 
three and one-half times. 

4 Cf. Winer, p. 167. 

5 Cf. also xi. 2, 3. 

6 Cf, also Deut. xxxii. 11; Ps. xxxvi. 8. 

7 Ziill., Ew. ii. 


302 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

ticular eagle is not designated. Ewald’s former opinion, also, that the art. 
in the Hebrew way? designates superlatively a very great eagle, is not 
admissible, because the analogy — even though it corresponded better than 
is actually the case — would give only a purely superlative idea.2 Ebrard 
has developed from his view, that the art. designates the very eagle men- 
tioned already in vili. 18, the thought that “the rescue of the woman would 
follow in the moment when the final extraordinary developments of the 
fifth and sixth trumpets are to begin;” or, as he also says, that the woman 
“shall be sustained by the strength of the eagle which is to bring judgment 
upon the godless world.” But even apart from the two interpretations, 
lying at the basis of the false presumption that the soaring of the woman 
- away into the wilderness is, according to fact and time, to be entirely distin- 
guished from the escape into the wilderness, neither the one nor the other 
interpretation is possible, because in this passage that eagle cannot be meant, 
which in viii. 13 appears for a very special end, and one entirely foreign to 
what is stated in this passage. What is said can be concerning no particular 
eagle; the art. is intended generically,? as i. 1.4 Two wings, like those of 
the great eagle, were given the woman, for rapid and sure escape. On this 
account, also, we are not to think of the eagle mentioned in Ezek. xvii. 3, 7, 
where, in a parable, the kings of Babylon and Egypt are represented as 
eagles; the thought accordingly developed by Auberlen 5 from this passage, 
that the secular power itself— more specifically, “the two parts of the 
Roman Empire in the East and West, especially since Constantine ” — must 
afford the woman, i.e., the Christian Church, a secure place by means of 
Roman civil and legal order, is consequently with as little foundation in 
the phraseology of the text, as the point of vision in general, which this form 
of exposition assumes, corresponds with the intention and contents of the 
entire ch. xii. — iva πέτηται εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, k.t.2. As the nature of the escape, 
viz., by flying on eagle’s wings, so is also the place of refuge described 
according to the model of the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt in the wil- 
derness. ‘To the privations incident to the abode in the wilderness, the ὅπου 
τρέφεται, «.7.A., does not refer;® the only point made, is that the place pre- 
pared by God in the wilderness, for the fleeing woman, is a sure place of 
refuge against the persecution of the dragon, and that—as God formerly 
nourished his people in the wilderness — the woman would be nourished in 
this place of refuge, during the time determined on the part of God. — ἀπὸ 
This determination is not to be combined with the 
remote xéryTa,’ but with the immediately preceding ὅπου τρέφεται, x.7.2.,8 and, 
therefore, to be explained like the Heb. 299, Judg. ix. 21:9 “out of the sight 
of the serpent,” i.e., far and concealed from it. No addition is to be made, 


προσώπου Tov ὄφεως. 


1 Judg. vi. 15; 1 Sam. xvii. 14. 
2 «* The absolutely great, i.e., the greatest.” 
5 De Wette. \ 
4 διὰ τοῦ ayy. avr, 5 Cf. Aret., Beng. 

6 Against Hengstenb., etc., who, like Auber- 
len, wants to find it indicated that the ‘time 
of the Church’s desolation,” i.e., the “ entire 


heathen-Christian, or Church-historical pe- 
riod,” is only a time of pilgrimage to the 
glory of the heavenly Canaan. 

7 Vitr., Ziill. 

8 Beng., Ew., De Wette, Hengstenb. 

9 LXX.: ἔφυγεν - καὶ ῴκησεν ἐκεῖ ἀπὸ προ- 
σώπου AB. 


CHAP. XII. 15, 16. ; 353 


at least as Hengstenb. does: “at its flight or in its fear;” the concise mode 
of statement presupposes the flight as already accomplished, and states how 
the escaped woman now tarries in security. 

Ver. 15, 16. The dragon cannot reach the woman flying on eagle’s 
wings; and, therefore, casts a stream of water out of his mouth after her, in 
order to destroy her. But also by this danger the woman remains unharmed, 
because the earth absorbs the stream. — ὡς ποταμόν. This description of the 
great amount of water cast forth by the serpent serves to explain and illus- 
trate the purpose: iva ταύτην ποταμοφόρητον ποιῆσῃ, “to sink her carried away 
by the waters of the river,” as Vitr. appropriately explains the word,! not 
occurring elsewhere in biblical Greek, but otherwise regularly formed. 
Hesych.? explains the Homeric ἀπόερσεν ὃ by ποταμορφόρητον ἐποίησεν. --- The 
help afforded the woman imperilled on the part of the earth is described in 
a way, ver. 16, which is conformable with the nature of the danger, as well 
also with the nature of the earth; the earth opens its mouth, and drinks 
up the stream of water. The idea recalls not so much Gen. iv. 11,‘ as 
rather Num. xvi. 30, 32,5 since it is thought the mighty flood of water van- 
ishes suddenly and inefficaciously in the widely gaping earth. — The ques- 
tion concerning the genesis of this entire description, vv. 15, 16, is essentially 
a preliminary question, if it be as to whether a prophecy actually to be 
fulfilled be found here. The allegorists make the matter too easy by com- 
paring the water cast forth from the mouth of the serpent directly with the 
many waters, xvii. 1, on which the great harlot sits, and which are there 
(ver. 15) expressly explained as a figure of many nations, and who thus 
reach the opinion that in this passage also the stream of water signifies a 
stream of people which will roll against the Church, whether they be satis- 
fied with this general sense,* or more definite references be introduced.’ — 


1 Cf. the analogous ἀνεμοφόρητος. 
2 Ed. Alberti, i. 461. 


‘““The armies of Cestius and Vespasian.” 
Hammond: ‘“ Recent persecutions after the 


8. Jl., iv. 348. 

4 Ziill. 

δ ἀνοίξασα ἡ γῆ τὸ στόμα αὐτῆς καταπίεται 
αὐτούς, κ.τ.λ. --ο ἠνοίχθη ἡ γῆ καὶ κατέπιεν αὐτ. 

6 Hengstenb., Ebrard. Cf. Beda: ‘* The 
force of persecutions.” Andreas: ἀθέων ἀν- 
δρῶν ἣ πονηρῶν δαιμονων ἣ ποικίλων πειρασμῶν 
πλῆθος [** the abundance of godless men, or 
wicked demons, or various trials’’] coming 
out of the mouth of the serpent,” i.e., ἐκ mpo- 
στάγματος αὐτου [** by its command ”’], as Vict. 
already indicates. C.a Lap.: ‘* The army of 
Antichrist.” Stern: ‘“‘The flood of godless 
nations and infernal spirits.” 

7 Calov.: ‘*The Arian heretics.” Vitr.: 
“The Saracens, who (ver. 16) were defeated 
by Charles Martel.” Coccejus: ‘‘The armies 
of Maxentius and Licinius, which were de- 
feated by Constantine the Great, and, indeed 
(ver. 16: ἡ yj), with the forces of the lands in 
which (ver. 14) the Church had already found 
a refuge, viz., Gaul and Spain.” Bengel : 
‘The Turks from the year 1058 on.’? Wetst.: 


Neronian (ver. 3) on the part of the Romans, 
who, however (ver. 16), were withdrawn from 
the Christians by the Jewish war.” Ew. ii.: 
‘‘The flight of the mother congregation from 
Jerusalem to Pella.’? Cf. Euseb., H. £., iii. 5. 
In connection with this, ver. 15 is referred to 
some great danger on the Jordan, possibly an 
attack by a faction of desperate Jews. Ew. 
interprets the delivering earth, but not more 
definitely. Auberlen: “ The migration of na- 
tions, whose flood, however, is not destructive 
to the Church, because the earth, i.e., the cul- 
tured Roman world, received those wild Ger- 
manic masses within itself, subdued their 
hostility, mellowed them, and won them to 
Christianity.” But even granting that the 
allegorical mode of exposition is justified, and 
that in vy. 15 and 16 definite events of secular 
history are foretold, is it possible that the 
writer of the Apoc. could have conceived of 
the thought that the masses of nations which 
Satan casts forth against the Church are ‘‘ won 
to Christianity’? This glaring contradiction 


304 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

By any allegorical interpretation whatever, we are of course prevented from 
making of the description in ver. 15 sqq. a prophecy actually to be fulfilled, 
because of the similar descriptions which precede in vv. 1-6, vv. 7-12, vv. 
13, 14, not allowing such interpretation. The stream of water from the 
mouth of the serpent designates as little something actually occurring in 
the present or in the future of John as the two wings of the eagle which, in 
ver. 14, were given the woman; but, as there the escape of the woman is 
represented with a plastic art, which is developed from the allusion to the 
O. T. testimony concerning God’s preservation of his people, so John here 
describes the danger which Satan, in his rage, prepares for the woman still 
fleeing, in such a way as to form living images from the symbolical mode of 
speech of the O. T. Entirely remote is any allusion to the passage of the 
Israelites through the Red Sea;! but in passages like Ps. xviii. 5-17, xxxii. 
6, xlii. 8, exxiv. 4, where pressing dangers are illustrated under the figure of 
great floods of water, lies the origin of the peculiar conception of the Apoc. 
idea; even its concrete form has a certain analogy in Ps. xviii. 5, where 
what is said of “the cords of death” and “ the floods of ungodliness” is in 
the same figurative sense as “the cords of hell,” and “the snares of death.” 
In such views we may recognize the foundation given the fantasy of the 
prophet, upon which. his actual vision is ordinarily based.? 

Ver. 17. The dragon, inflamed only to greater rage (καὶ ὠργίσθη τῇ γυναικὶ) 
against the fleeing woman (ver. 16), because of the frustration of his last 
attack, applies himself to,a conflict with “the rest of her seed which keep 
the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus.” — For the 
correct explanation of the expression τ. λοιπῶν tov σπέρματος αὐτῆς, «.7.A., — and 
also for the determination thence, according to the context, of the idea of 
the γυνῇ, ---- we must first of all maintain, against Ebrard, that the σπέρμα αὐτῆς 
is not a seed from which also the woman springs, but only the seed spring- 
ing from the woman, i.e., born of her, can be designated; so that the λοιποὶ 
τοῦ σπερμ. αὐτης could in no way be those “ who belong to the same seed with 
the woman.” In violation of the context, Auberlen® further judges the 
dom. τ. or. ait. to be “the disciples of the Lord’ who have survived the earlier 
persecutions” (vv. 13-16); for if the hostility described in vv. 13-16 is 
directed against the woman herself, not her seed, that hostility remains 
entirely unsuccessful,‘ so that the subject here cannot be “survivors ” in gen- 
eral. This also against Hengstenb., who concedes two different references: 
“ The rest are they who survive the hostile inundation in ver. 15, or are not 
touched by it.” — A guide to the more specific determination of the λοιποὶ τ, 
σπέρμ. αὐτ. is contained in the words τῶν trypoivtwy —’Ijood, if the sense be cor- 
rectly stated by Ewald, whom Ziill. follows: “Of those uniting with the 


is not removed by the fact that Christianity is 
to come into consideration ‘ chiefly, not on its 
heavenly, but on its earthly side, as a force 
of civilization’ (Auberlen, p. 297). And with 
respect to actual history dare it be said that 
the Germanic nations were cast forth like a 
stream of water out of the jaws of Satan, and 
were swallowed up by the earth? Does it 


agree with this, that from this Satanic stream 
of water the German Reformation emerged? 
It is a supposition more worthy of being enter- 
tained, when Aub., p. 300, recurs to the Turks. 

1 Against Ew., De Wette, etc. 

2 Cf. Introduction, p. 47 sq. 

3 p. 298. 

4 Of. ver. 17. 


CHAP. XII. 17. 855 


more eager and wholesome study of Mosaic laws firm faith in Jesus the Mes- 
siah;” but the expression is entirely too general,! than that thereby merely 
Jewish Christians be designated. — The relation, especially presented by 
the context, of the statement τ. λοιπῶν τοὺ σπέρματος αὐτ., viz., to the man-child 
which, according to ver. 5, belongs to the seed of the woman as the first- 
born, has been acknowledged with complete definiteness only by Zull.;? yet 
while he has correctly explained only the form, but not, at the same time, 
the subject, he enables us to recognize the occasion because of which this 
most simple contrast of “the rest” of the seed of the woman, and that first- 
born brother, the Messiah himself,? has not been obvious to expositors, viz., 
the difficulty of correctly conceiving of the woman in the relation as well 
to the man-child (ver. 5) as also to “the rest of her seed.” The γυνή herself, 
her υἱός, and the λοιποὶ τοὺ σπέρματος αὐτῆς, are three ideas so essentially con- 
nected that the misunderstanding of one necessarily hinders the correct 
explanation of the rest. In general, there is no doubt possible as to the fact 
that the son of the woman is the Messiah; but, nevertheless, that the Virgin 
Mary is not on this account to be understood by the woman, — even though 
the ideal contemplation of the writer of the Apoc. always gives the historical 
person of the Virgin a certain support, — Andr., in agreement with Metho- 
dius, has already noted. Any such reference to the person of Mary is ren- 
dered impossible, on the one hand, by the ideal description of the γυνῆ herself, 
and the events pertaining to her; on the other, by her relation to “the rest 
of her seed.” By the latter statement—as the λοιποὶ τ. σπ. avr. is desig- 
nated not only by the final clause of ver. 17, but also by what succeeds 
in ch. xiii., as, at all events, believers in Christ — the expositors are 
led with essential unanimity to recognition of the fact that the γυνῇ desig- 
nates the “Church,” in analogy with the mode of contemplation, accord- 
ing to which, in the O. T., the congregation of God’s people appears as 
the wife of Jehovah, and in the Apoc. itself* as the bride of the Lord. 
If now the question be as to the more specific comprehension of this, in 
general, obvious idea of the γυνή, as well according to the measure of sig- 
nificant features in the description of the γυνῆ herself,5 as also in relation to 
her man-child, and the rest of her seed; in the first place, all the expositors 
err who, in the γυνῆ, wish to recognize the Christian Church, whether they 
expressly distinguish it from the Jewish or O. T. Church,® and limit the 
description to the antichristic period at the end of the world,’ or regard 
the N. T. Church in essential connection with that of the O. T., the latter 
not without its N. T. continuation, and both as one inseparable compre- 
hensive Church.® A characteristic sign that these two modifications of the 


1 Cf. xiv. 12, xxii. 14. Concerning the cor- 
rect meaning of ἔχ. τ᾿ μαρτ. Ἴησ., cf., against 
Ewald especially, vi. 9, xix. 10. 

2 «The rest of her seed, the Zionites on 
earth, in contrast with the child above re- 
moved.”’ 

3 Cf. Matt. xxviii. 10; Heb. ii. 11, 12. 

4 xxii. 17. 

5 Cf. ver. 1. 


6 Beda, N.de Lyra, Aret., Hammond, Calov., 
Vitr., Beng., etc. 

7 C. a Lap., Stern. 

8 Victorin., Andr., De Wette, Hengstenb., 
Auberlen, Christiani: ‘The Church of the 
last time.’? Cf. also the inconsistencies of 
Coccejus, who, in ver. 14, suddenly speaks of 
the N. T. Church, although he had referred 
what preceded to the O. T.; of Eichh., who 


356 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


exposition essentially cohere, lies in the fact that men like Vitringa and 
Auberlen share the error that the twelve stars (ver. 1) refer to the twelve 
apostles.! But the view that the woman is the N. T. Church, inevitably 
miscarries in ver. 5; for it is impossible? to refer the birth of the Messiah 
to Christ’s attaining life and form in believers. For this reason,‘ the refer- 
ence to the O. T. Church has been received; but, on the one hand, the 
difficulty concerning the griginal exposition arising from ver. 55 is not 
properly removed, and, on the other, a new difficulty is developed. For, if 
the γυνή be the O. and N. T. Church universal, who are then the λοιπ. τ. σπ. αὖτ.» 
ver. 17? The opinion of Bleek, De Wette, and Hengstenb., also of Klief.,— 
according to which an actual distinction could not be made between the 
woman and the rest of her seed, since the woman herself is nothing but 
the sum of her children, and by ἡ γυνή the whole, while by οἱ Aum. τ. on. air. 
the particular members of the whole, are designated,6— Auberlen™ defends 
upon the ground that only in this way can it be explained why the dragon 
who was enraged with the woman turns against her seed. But the text does 
directly the opposite in offering a distinction between the woman and her 
seed. The woman (ver. 16) is hidden from injury on the part of the dragon; 
just because he sees that he cannot reach the woman herself, he inflicts his 
wrath, which undoubtedly is directed against the woman, upon another sub- 
ject still within reach, viz., the rest of the woman’s children. Is it not very 
readily to be understood, if the dragon wishes now to distress the mother b 

injuring her children? — The γυνὴ who bore the Messiah (ver. 5), and has 
still other seed (ver. 17), can be only the O. T. Church of God, the true 
Israel. John was taught already by the ancient prophetic representation, 
to ascribe seed to this Church, and to regard her as mother of her children, 
the believing and godly;® the description, also, in vv. 2, 5, has originated 
not without an allusion to Mic. v. 1 sqq. But nevertheless, in the writer of 
the Apocalypse, the view, with all its analogy to the ancient prophetic types, 
appears peculiarly defined, viz., because he represents heathen Christians 
(the λοιπ. τ. ox. αὐτ., Hofm., Ebrard), as belonging to the seed of the woman, 
and in so far the brethren of the Messiah.1° Here John would have a very 


already, in ver. 5, inserts ‘‘ the Christian Church 
which proceeded from Judaism,”’ etc. 

1 «* The apostolic Church” (Vitr., p. 566). 

2To say nothing as to the proposition 
that the “ birth” of Christ may be his return 
to judgment, as the result of the course of 
the Christian Church through time, as Klief. 
(Zeitschr., a.a.O.8., 547) indicates by under- 
standing by the γυνή the people of God in 
Christendom. Cf. on ver. 11. 

3 Against Beda, Stern, etc. 

4(Cf., e.g., Auberlen, p. 277: “By the 
woman who bore Jesus, we are naturally to 
understand the Church of God in its O. T. 
form;’’? on the other hand, p. 280: ‘*The 
Church also in its N. T. form.” 

5 For, the more earnestly the essential unity 
of the O. and N. T. Church of God is asserted, 


the less proper is it to ascribe that exclusively 
to the first part of this Church which cannot 
be ascribed to the second part. 

6 Cf., on the other hand, Ewald. 

7 p. 289. 

8 Cf. Herder, Heinr., Ewald, Ziill., Hofm., 
Ebrard; also Bleek, Vorles., Volkm., Hilgenf. : 
‘‘ The original Church in Palestine.’’ 

9 Cf. Isa. liv. 1, 13, Ixvi. 8. 

10 Volkm., who indorses this explanation, 
attempts, however, to harmonize this passage 
with the assumed Judaism of the Apoc. by 
requiring us to regard heathen Christians as 
metics subordinate to the citizens of the king- 
dom of God. Hilgenf. prefers to keep clear 
of this distinction here, and to think only of 
the daughter-congregation in general contrast 
with that of the Palestinian mother-church. — 


NOTES. 357 


suitable model in Mic. v. 3, as the ]}8 11 designates the growth of the 
Church from the heathen, who are added to the mother Church as though 
born of her seed. For the evangelical-prophetical fundamental view, cf. Isa. 
ii. 2 sqq.; Zech. viii. 20 sqq.; John iv. 22, ete. Against this conception, it 
dare not be said, that nevertheless not only believers from the heathen are 
brethren of the Messiah, that consequently — beneath the acknowledgment 
of the reference of of λοιποὶ τ. σπέρμ. avt., to the child of the woman mentioned 
in’ ver. 5— the λοιποί are, in any case, to be regarded Jewish and heathen 
Christians; for the ordinary view, according to which all believers are 
brethren of the Lord, is not presented here as certainly as is the ideal 
person of the γυνῆ, the mother of the Messiah, the O. T. Church of God, in 
‘ whose complete unity Jewish Christians are regarded as the genuine Israel- 
ites. [See Note LXIX., p. 359.] 

Only now? is the purpose of what is described in vv. 1-17, with respect 
to what follows, to be clearly recognized. In ver. 17 (ἀπῆλθε, x.7.A.), this 
distinctly comes to light. By the vision of ch. xii., Satan himself is desig- 
nated as the proper exciter of the πόλεμος (ver. 17) of the θλίψις, which be- 
lievers have yet to expect before the coming of their Lord. And, besides, 
a specific determination of the πόλεμος, whose description is here introduced, 
lies in the fact, that, on the one hand, Satan appears in the form which he 
had attained in the Roman Empire (ver. 3), as, then, on the other hand, those 
Christians are designated as the goal of the dragon’s rage who came from 
the Gentiles to the sonship of Israel (ver. 17), and are to be found within 
the bounds of that empire. But how Satan now excites war, and what 
instruments he puts in motion, is made manifest directly afterwards, viz., in 
ch. xili., which begins with the words that in the later editions form the 
close of ch. xii. (ver. 18). 


ΝΟΤΕΒ BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LXVIII. (a.) Ver. 1 sq. γυνὴ περιβεβλημένη, x.t.A. 


See the full discussion by Diisterdieck at the close of the chapter, who re- 
stricts the γυνὴ to the O. T. Church. So Luthardt. Alford marks a transition 
to another view there stated: ‘‘The whole symbolism points to the Church, 
the bride of God; and of course, from the circumstances afterwards related, the 
O. T. Church, at least at the beginning of the vision.’’ Lange very tersely puts 
' the argument for the O. and N. T. Church in undivided unity: ‘‘ The fact that 
the woman cannot be referred to the New Testament Church alone, results clearly 
from ver. 5: the Christian Church did not bear Christ. Holding fast the iden- 
tity of her in the heaven and her in the wilderness, neither can the woman be 
significant of the O. T. Church by itself, since the same woman lives on in the 
wilderness throughout the N. T. period of the cross. The unity of the O. and 
N. T. Church of God lay, doubtless, much nearer to the contemplation of John 
than to that of an exegesis whose view is, in many respects, too exclusively 


Both are unsuitable to this passage, since here 1 «The rest of his [the Messlah’s] brethren.”’ 
the opposition to the received anti-Pauline LXX., incorrectly: οἱ ἐπίλοιποι τῶν ἀδελφῶν 
Judaism of the Apoc. is presented. αὐτων. 2 Cf. on vv. 5, 6. 


308 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


fixed upon externalities. Though it is impossible that John could ‘have appre- 
hended the woman as Mary herself, yet the fact was most closely present to his 
consciousness that this Mary, whose bodily offspring Christ was, was the final 
concentration of the O. T. theocracy.’”’ Gebhardt: ‘‘The Church of God is 
represented by the figure of a woman in the O. T. (Isa. liv. 1, 13, Ixvi. 8; 
Mic. v. 1-8). The question now arises, whether we are here to understand the 
Church of the O. T. or of the N. T. From the first verse of the chapter to 
the last, the woman, without doubt, represents the same personality, and the seer 
cannot have understood, by the woman, the N. T. Church, in distinction from 
that of the O. T.: the general statements of vv. 1-6 are against it, nor is this 
interpretation helped by limiting the meaning of the Jewish Christian Church. 
On the other hand, it is utterly impossible to understand by the woman, the 
O. T. Church in distinction from that of the New; for then not only vv. 13-17, 
but even ver. 6, would be without meaning. What, then, are we to understand 
by the woman? Simply, the Church of God which already existed in the pro- 
phetic fact of the old covenant, and which now exists in the time of its fulfil- 
ment in Christendom, and will exist in its eternal completion in the new heaven 
and the new earth.’’ Beck: ‘‘The woman clothed with the sun designates the 
heavenly kingdom of God, as it unites in itself as the true Church the O. and 
the N. T. Church of God as a divine Church-kingdom, in contrast with the 
adulterous church of the flesh. Already in the O. T. covenant of promise and 
its believers, this divine Church-kingdom had found its external type and exter- 
nal preparation; but in the N. T. spiritual institution, with its spiritual gifts 
and spiritual men, it had found its inner type and inner preparation: finally, in 
the future new Church of the new earth, it has both its external and inner com- 
pletion.”? On the particular features, Gerhard (L. T., xi. 34): ““ Clothed with 
the sun’’ = the righteousness assumed by faith, Mal. iv. 2, and the heavenly 
glory in which it shall shine hereafter, Matt. xiii. 43. ‘The moon under her 
feet’? = treading upon all the mutations of earth, and especially heresies which, 
like the moon, are ever changing. ‘‘Crown of twelve stars”? = brilliancy of 
prophetic and apostolic doctrine. ‘‘ Being in travail’? = pains of spiritual birth 
(Gal. iv. 19, ete.). Beck regards the sun, as signifying not only the benign in- 
fluence of the Church in diffusing light and life, but also the glory of the new 
Jerusalem; while in treading upon the moon, which derives its light from the 
sun, and is the earthly measure of time and the variable light of the earthly 
night, he finds portrayed the superiority of the Church above all earthly times 
and changes, and its eternal lustre uninterrupted by night (xxii. 5; Isa. lx. 20). 
So Luthardt: ‘‘ She triumphs over night, which for her has passed away.”’ On 
‘¢in travail,’’? see Victorinus: ‘‘ The ancient Church of the fathers and prophets 
and.saints and apostles, which had the groans of its torments and longings, 
until it saw that Christ had taken flesh.’”’ Luther, in 1535, expressed the con- 
ception of this passage as referring to the Church in its entire chronological 
compass, in his hymn, Sie ist mir lieb, der werthe Magd. 'The two last stanzas 
have been thus rendered by Massie: — 
| *‘ She wears a crown of purest gold, 
Twelve shining stars attend her; 
Her raiment, glorious to behold, 
Surpasses far in splendor 
The sun at noon; 
Upon the moon 


She stands, the Bride 
Of Him who died: 


e 


NOTES. 969 


Sore travail is upon her : 
She bringeth forth a noble Son, 
Whom all the world doth honor; 
She bows before His throne. 


‘¢ Thereat the dragon raged, and stood 
With open mouth before her; 
But vain was his attempt, for God 
His buckler broad threw o’er her. 
Up to his throne 
He caught his Son, 
But left the foe 
To rage below. 
The mother, sore afflicted, 
Alone into the desert fled ; 
There by her God protected, 
By her true Father fed.” 


[See also below, Note LXIX.] 


LXVIII. (b.) Ver. 7. πόλεμος ἐν οὐρανῷ. 


Philippi (Kirch. Glaubenslehre, III. 321 sq.): ‘‘In the N. T. there seem to 
be contradictory expressions. For while, according to Rev. xii. 7 sqq., Satan 
still dwells in heaven, according to Luke x, 18 he has already fallen from 
heaven like lightning; and while, according to Eph. ii. 2, the power of the 
prince of darkness prevails in the air, according to 2 Pet. ii. 4 God has cast 
the fallen angels into the abyss, and delivered them unto chains of darkness as 
those who are to be kept for judgment, and in Jude, ver. 6, they are reserved in 
everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day. On the 
other hand, they pray (Luke viii. 31; cf. Matt. viii. 29, 31) not to be cast into 
the abyss before the time, as also, according to Matt. xxv. 41, Rev. xx. 10, only 
at the final judgment shall they be handed over to eternal fire with its pain. 
The seeming contradiction of these different forms of statement is explained 
only by the distinction between the literal and the figurative modes of expression. 
The dwelling in heaven as the superterrestrial region is a figure, partly of quali- 
fication for superterrestrial exercise of power, partly of participation in super- 
terrestrial, blessed life. Since Satan employs the former, even until the day of 
judgment, he is still up to that time in heaven; but when Christ, as the 
stronger, came upon him, and despoiled him of his power (Matt. xii. 29), he saw 
him, like lightning, fall from heaven. . .. As long as the kingdom of Satan 
continues among unbelievers on earth, and his power to tempt believers remains, 
so also does he still continue to be in heaven; and not until the parousia of the 
Lord shall he be cast out, and divested of his own power. But, on the other 
hand, in so far as Satan, with his angels, is excluded from the communion of 
the superterrestrial blessed life of God, is he from the very beginning at the 
moment of his fall, no longer in heaven, but in the abyss.”’ 


LXIX. Ver. 17. μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν, 


Alford: ‘‘ Note, as important elements for the interpretation: 1. That the 
woman has seed besides the man-child who was caught up to God’s throne, those 
who are not only distinct from herself, but who do not accompany her in her 
flight into the wilderness. 2. That those persons are described as being they who 


360 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus. 8. That 
during the woman’s time of her being fed in the wilderness, the dragon is mak- 
ing war, not against her, but against this remnant of her seed. 4. That by the 
form of expression here, —these present participles, descriptive of habit, and 
occurring at the breaking-off of the vision, as regards the general description of 
the dragon’s agency, —it is almost necessarily implied that the woman, while 
hidden in the wilderness from the dragon’s wrath, goes on bringing forth sons 
and daughters thus described.”’ These facts he regards fatal to the view of the 
flight as the withdrawal of God’s true servants from open recognition. So 
Beck, who also finds its solution in the doctrine of the invisible Church, and 
refers to the parallel in Gal. iv. 27. In fact, the entire passage (Gal. iv. 22 sqq.) 
affords an answer to an objection which Diisterdieck derives from the οἱ λοιποὶ; 
for here, as there, the Church, as an institution regenerating and perpetuating 
through the word and sacraments a spiritual seed, is a mother; while the indi- 
viduals belonging to the Church, as the congregation of believers, are the chil- 
dren. Our author ignores the well-known principle, Omne simile claudicat. 


CHAP. XIII. 3861 


CHAPTER XIII. 


Ch. xii. ver. 18. ἐστάθη. So Treg., Lach. [W. and H.], also Hofm. (Weiss. 
u. Erf. II. 354), after the best witnesses (A, C, &, 92, Vulg., Syr., Ar., Aeth., 
Ed., Ald.), indorsed already by Mill (Proleg., 1249). The Recepta ἐστάθην (B., 
Copt., al., Griesb., Matth., Tisch., Ewald, De Wette, etc.) is, most probably, an 
accommodation to the succeeding καὶ εἶδον, Cf. the exposition. 

Ch. xiii. ver. 1. κέρατα δέκα καὶ κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ. So, properly already, Griesb. 
The reverse order (Elz.), as xii. 3, appears more natural. —dvoua βλασφημίας. 
The singular (Elz., Wetst., Beng.) sufficiently supported by C, δὰ, and other 
witnesses, which, besides, Andreas has in his text and commentary, is properly 
maintained by Ziill. and De Wette. The strongly indorsed plural ὀνόματα (A, 
B, Verss., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), received already by Griesb., is suspicious 
as an interpretation. — Ver. 5. Whether καὶ βλασφημίας (C, 8, Elz., Tisch. IX. 
[W. and H.]), or «. βλασφημίαν (B, al., Beng., Tisch.), or, finally, «. βλάσφημα 
(A, Lach.), is to be written, is not to be decided from the witnesses contradicting 
one another. The reading βλάσφημα does not commend itself, because of its 
conformity with the preceding μεγάλα. The sing. might merit preference to the 
plur. (cf. ver. 6, where εἰς βλασφημίας is correctly read, Lach., Tisch.), as a less 
easy reading. — Ver. 7. The first member of the verse, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ πόλεμον 
ποιῆσαι (Elz., Beng., Griesb.;, ποιῆσαι πόλεμον, &, Tisch.) μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ 
νικῆσαι αὐτούς, is lacking in important witnesses (A, C, 12, 14, 92), and is erased 
by Lach. But the words which occur in B, δὲ, Verss., and whose erroneous 
omission is easily explained, because the second half of the verse also begins 
With kai ἐδόθη αὐτῷ, are retained with greater propriety by Tisch. — Ver. 8. In- 
stead of the Rec. ὧν οὐ γέγραπται τὰ ὀνόματα év τῇ βίβλῳ τ. ζ., it is undoubtedly 
more correct to read: τὸ ὄνομα (A, Β, C, al.) and ἐν τῷ βιδϑλίῷ τ. ζ. (Beng., Griesb., 
Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). But the rest of the words also are, with Lach., 
Tisch. [W. and H.], to be changed to οὐ od yéyp. τὸ ὄνομα αὐτου ἐν 7.8.7.0. The 
ov occurs in C, Iren.; the αὐτου ἴῃ A, C. Also the particularly erroneous read- 
ing ovai, which A has written before yéyp., appears to point back to the reading 
ov ov yéyp. S appears uncertain. —The τοῦ before ἐσφαγμ., which is lacking in 
the Rec., is properly (A, B, C, δὲ) restored by Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. 
and H.].— Ver. 10. The Rec., εἴ τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει, εἰς ἀιχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει, 
which in this form is almost without support, expresses most readily, and, for 
this reason, in a suspicious way, the meaning which numerous variations in 
many ways describe (‘‘If any one shall have led captivity, he shall go into 
captivity’? (Iren.). εἴ τις αἰχμαλωτίζει, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει. Ἴ. αἰχμαλωτιεῖ, αἰχμα- 
λωτισθήσεται, 18), and which A gives thus: εἴ τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν 
ὑπάγει (Lach., large ed., Tisch. [W. and H.]). To this last reading the defective 
form of the text also points, which occurs in B, OC, &, 28, 38: εὖ τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν 
ὑπάγει, for this is manifestly only a mistake which has once omitted the twice- 
written words εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν. The corrupt reading in Andr., εἶ τις ἔχει αἰχμαλω- 
σίαν, ὑπάγει, is manifestly only the remnant of an interpretation. According to 


362 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN, 


the witnesses, therefore, the text given by Lach. and Tisch. is the best. But it 
is not improbable (cf. De Wette) that the ὑπάγει also is an interpretation; for 
the entire sentence, elliptical also in the second clause, would read: εἴ τις εἰς 
αἰχμαλωσίαν, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν. --- Ver. 12. καὶ ποιεῖ τ. y. The pres. (A, Ὁ, &, Elz., 
Lach., Tisch. [X. [W. and H.]), which is certain in ver. 12a and ver. 13, would 
be unchanged not only in the imperf. (B, Tisch.), but also in the fut. (cf. Griesb., 
Tisch.). — Ver. 14. Instead of the neuter ὃ ἔχ. (Ν), the extremely remarkable 
masc. ὃς occurs not only in A, 28, 35 (Griesb.), but also (cf. Tisch.) in B, C. 
Lach. and Tisch. [W. and H.] have, therefore, written ὃς. But since the 
writer of the Apoc. could have written the masc. neither by a grammatical 
error (cf. vv. 2, 11), nor possibly because of the reference to a masc. subject, 
which would be represented by the θηρίον (against Hofm., Schriftbew. II. 2, 
p- 655; Volkmar. See exposition), the grammatically correct form is to be 
maintained, although the appearance of the ὃς in the most important MSS. is 
inexplicable. Perhaps the masc. (cf. xvii. 16; also xiv. 1, var. lect.) is an 
attempt at interpretation in the sense of Volkmar. But the interpretation thus 
indicated is refuted by the context. The reference also to 6 δράκων (cf. ver. 8) is 
here impossible. The neut. necessary for correct exegesis has in its favor also 
the critical authority of &8.— Ver. 15. The iva, which must be expected with 
ἀποκτανθῶσιν after the ποίησῃ, occurs in A (Lach.) before ὅσοι, in minusce. directly 
before ἀποκτ. (Elz.). That the particle is missing in B, δὲ (so also Tisch.), is 
occasioned indeed by the uncertainty of the passage.—Ver. 17. A, B, δὲ.» 
Vulg., al., favor the «ai at the beginning of the verse. The omission (C, Lach., 
Tisch. IX.) is easily explained, since, as the catena (in Tisch.) expressly says, 
it is regarded as superfluous. 


After the dragon, in order to inflict his wrath upon believers (xii. 17), 
has come to the seashore (ver. 18), John sees a beast rise out of the sea, 
which, like the dragon himself (xii. 3), is furnished with ten horns, seven 
heads, and ten diadems, and already by these insignia immediately makes 
known that it is an instrument to be employed by him in his war (xii. 17). 
To this beast the dragon also gives great power and dominion (xiii. 2), and 
it is permitted to make war against the saints (ver. 7); yet the description 
of this mighty instrument in the hand of Satan does not remain without the 
definite encouragement of sure consolation (ver. 10).— Besides the first 
beast, still another, which rises from the earth, is presented to the eye of the 
seer (ver. 11 sqq.). This second beast appears, not as co-ordinate with the 
first, which is absolutely the beast (vv. 14, 15, 17, 18), but! subordinate to it, 
an accomplice by means of seductive speeches, and other means of deception, 
to promote the activity of the first beast, and thus, likewise, to serve the 
wrath of the dragon. 

Ch. xii. ver. 18. καὶ ἐστάθη. The reading of the Rec. x. ἐστάθην, in a docu- 
mentary respect decidedly inferior to x. ἐστάθη, is not utterly impossible in an 
exegetical respect, as De Wette says ;? for there is no contradiction between 
the ἐστάθη and the ἀπῆλθε πολεμῆσαι (xii. 17), but in ver. 18 it is directly de- 
scribed how the dragon, who (ver. 17) turns from the fruitless persecution 


1 Cf. Hengstenb. Hengstenb., and Auberlen, all of whom ex- 
2 Cf. also Vitr., Beng., Ziill., Ewald, Bleek, pressly speak in favor of the Rec. 


CHAP. XIII. 1. 863 


of the woman to begin a conflict with believers, now stations himself on the 
seashore, viz., by no means as a spectator, 1 but with the purpose to call forth 
the beast from the sea, and to equip him with his power (ver. 2), which he 
will use as his instrument in the conflict he has now undertaken against be- 
lievers.2, Against Ebrard, who objects: “Is John to have the dragon stand- 
ing by the sea, and, besides, see his incarnation rise from the sea? What 
the dragon commits to the θηρίον are not possessions which he could have 
transmitted to him visibly. The dragon also no longer comes before us; it 
is not known whither he has gone,”—it is especially to be considered, 
that in ver. 2 the dragon appears on the scene actually and visibly to John, 
communicates his power, etc., to the θηρίον, and that this is in no way 
an “incarnation” of Satan, in the sense that he himself could not appear 
with the beast. Hence, between the ἀπῆλθε πολεμῆσαι, x.7.2., xii. 17, and the 
ἔδωκεν, «.7.2., Xili. 2, something must interpose, which explains that the ἀπῆλθε 
does not declare a complete retirement from the scene of the vision. This 
interposition is given with exquisite appropriateness by the καὶ ἐστάθη, x.7.1., 
ver. 18. --- ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον τῆς θαλ., because the beast is to come ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης 
(xili. 1). 

Ch. xiii. ver. 1. The following hints may serve for the preliminary 
fixing of points amidst the complication of expositions of the details and 
of the whole, that cross one another : — 

1. The interpretation of the beast upon the sea, vv. 1-10, — which appears 
also in ver. 11-18 as the chief beast, and whose correct interpretation is, 
therefore, the chief question, —is attempted in a twofold way, as in the 
beast there is, or is not, found a symbol of the Roman character (worldly 
dominion and power, the worship of idols, and superstition, etc.). The two 
chief species of exposition have each, again, two particular forms, which are 
very distinct. While many expositors in their reference to Rome refer 
only to pagan Rome,’ others have in mind Christian, i.e., papal, antichris- 
tian Rome.* On the other hand, however, many expositors also, who inter- 
preted neither the entire form of the beast, nor all his individual features, 
as referring to Rome, yet have assumed a reference to papal Rome by re- 
garding the beast,® as a whole, as pertaining to the description of the secular 
power, and have found the appearance of the secular power in the papacy 
symbolized, at least, by one part of the form of the beast, viz., by one of the 
seven heads;® while, especially by Catholic interpreters,’ a mode of explana- 
tion is recommended, which regards the ἀκ sa to Rome as distant as 
Beebe. 

. The exposition is regulated, on the one hand, by the symbol of Daniel; 
on τ other, by the parallel descriptions in the Αροο. itself (ch. xii. 3 sqq. ; 
ch. xvii.). But with what freedom and independence John both has, in ch. 


1 “* Was the dragon the spectator, or was 5 A. Ch. Lammert (Babel, das Thier τι. der 
John?” Vitr. 2 Cf. Hofm.; also Volkm. JSalsche Prophet, Gotha, 1863), depending on 

8 Victorin., Beda, Alcas, Bossuet, Ham- Auberlen, has wandered into arbitrary gener- 
mond, Grot., Wetst., Eichh., Herd., Ewald, alities. 
De Wette, Liicke, Bleek. 6 Hengstenb., Ebrard, Auberlen. 

4 Coccej., Vitr., Luther, Calov, Bengel., and 7 C. a Lap., Stern; cf. also already Andr. 


many others. 


364 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
xiii., fashioned the features derived from the Danielian symbol into a new 
picture, and also in ch. xvii. again presented them differently from ch. xiii., 
must be shown by the explanation of the details, which has thus to seek a 
decision of the controversy of expositors. 

ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης. The ordinary exposition makes its work too easy by 
immediately allegorizing the rising of the beast from the sea: “The beast 
rose from the disordered life of this world which surges in an ungodly way, 
viz., from the sea of nations.”1 The proper representation of the visionary 
locality is so little respected by this, that even in the statement ἐπὶ τ, ἄμμον 
τ. θαλ., xii. 18, a symbolical designation of numberless? masses of people has 
been found. But as, e.g., xii. 1, 3, the οὐρανός, in which the woman and the 
dragon appear to the seer, signifies nothing else in a symbolical way than 
the expression declares, so in this passage, especially, nothing further is 
represented than that the first beast rises out of the sea, on whose visible 
shore the dragon had just placed himself, while the second beast is beheld 
in the vision coming from the actual earth (ver. 11). But it is a further 
question as to whether a particular reference lies in this statement of place, 
which? follows not so much from the symbol of Dan. vii., and from Rev. 
xvii. 1, 5, as rather from the parallelism of ver. 11, where the ἐκ τῆς γῆς has 
in fact an inner relation (ver. 12). It results also, in general, from the 
mutual connection of the two beasts, and especially from the analogy of the 
ἐκ τῆς γῆς, that the ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης must have a similar relation. De Wette, 
therefore, is already in error, when he conjoins the rising out of the sea, and 
the coming out of the abyss (xi. 7, xvii. 8), as though the beast were desig- 
nated by the ἐκ τ. θαλάσσης as “a birth from the kingdom of darkness,” or 
even as one (Nero) returning from the realm of death.* Ewald’s opinion, 
also, that the ἐκ τ. θαλ. designates the insular government of the Roman 
beast,® is remote, and makes too much of an irrelevant point. — As the other 
beast rises from the earth, as from its own element and province, in order 
to corrupt the earth and those who dwell thereon, and to seduce to the wor- 
ship of the first beast, so the first beast rises ® out of the sea, which surrounds 
the whole earth, in order to rule over all who dwell within the boundaries of 
its sphere, — over the whole earth (ver. 4), and all that dwell on the earth 
(ver. 8), over all tribes and peoples (ver. 7). The sea, whereby the earth 
itself is surrounded, appears in like manner as a more remote province of 
the first beast rising from the same, as this beast himself properly rules, 
and the second beast only serves him. The two beasts appear throughout, 


1 Victorin., Beda, Andr., C. a Lap., Coccej., 
Boss., Stern, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Klief., etc. ; 
cf. also Grot.: “* From the power of the em- 
pire,” so that ‘the public origin” of this beast 
is indicated in contrast with ‘‘the private ori- 
gin’? of the other. Beng.: ‘‘ From Europe.” 

2 Cf. xx. 8. Hengstenb. ἡ 

8 Against Hammond and Eichh., who find 
only some sort of visionary locality designated. 

4 Against De Wette (cf. also Volkm., Ew. 
ii.), it is asserted only that the expression ἐκ 


τῆς θαλάσσης does not give the idea of ἐκ τῆς 
αβύσσου. Independent of this is the opinion 
also defended by De Wette, that the beast 
from the abyss (xi. 7) is essentially identical 
with the beast from the sea (xiii. 7); for that 
the different turns in the representation rest 
upon essentially the same foundation, is shown 
in ch. xvii. 

5 «¢Transmarine Rome, or that situated on 
the island of Italy.” 

6 ἀναβαῖνον, pres., as Vii. 2 


CHAP, XIII. 1. 365 


not as two rulers by the side of one another, as if possibly to the first be- 
longed only the sea without the earth, and to the second, on the other hand, 
the earth; but the power and dominion over the whole earth are given the 
first beast; while the second beast works on the earth and upon its inhab- 
itants, only in the service of the first. This relation expresses itself also in 
the fact that the first beast comes forth from the sea itself surrounding the 
earth. The analogy of the contrasted ἐκ τ. γῆς (ver. 11) forbids us to regard 
the ix τ. θαλάσσης as the sea of nations;! but this mode of exposition cannot 
be justified by an appeal to xvii. 1, 15, since there is no contrast in that 
passage between sea and earth; and, also, the sea is not once mentioned, 
but the ὕδατα πολλά, on which the harlot sits. The entire view there is thus 
different. 

θηρίον --- ἔχον κέρατα δέκα, «.7.A. Hengstenb. properly emphasizes against 
Beng. the fact that the expression θηρίον has already in itself a bad secondary 
signification. The ζῶα 2 could not be called θηρία. Already, in Daniel,’ the 
godless secular kingdoms appear in the forms of θηρία, and especially is 
the significant feature to be there 4 observed, that just as the self-sufficient 
scorn of the Chaldaean king is punished by his brutalization, so, on the other 
hand, because of his repentance there were given to the beast, representing 
the Chaldaean émpire, human feet and a human heart. — The more definite 
explanation of the θηρίον is afforded by what follows.6— That John men- 
tions first ὁ the ten horns, then the seven heads of the beast, — otherwise than 
in the parallel xii. 3,—could have its foundation in the fact,’ that at the 
rising of the beast the horns first became visible; but according to this con- 
sideration, it must be expected that then the further description, καὶ ἐπὶ τ. 
κεράτων abr. δέκα dvad. immediately connects with the κέρατα δέκα, and it would 
be written καὶ κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τ. κεφ. ait. ὄνομα βλασφ. As not only the 
order in which the ten horns and seven heads of the beast are mentioned, 
is different from that in the description of the dragon, who, nevertheless, in 
other respects bears essentially the same insignia, but the present description 
has in it something peculiar, in that here the ten diadems appear on the ten 
horns, while there (x1i. 3) the seven diadems appear on the seven heads of 
the dragon; the entire order in the particular points of the description, which 
also expresses something particular with respect to the heads of the beast, 
depends upon a deeper foundation, lying especially in the significance of the 
form of the beast. If it is denied that the θηρίον designates the precise form 
of the antichristian secular power which this has attained in the Roman 
Empire,’ the explanation of itself indicates arbitrary guessing: the ten horns 
and seven heads — which are generally interpreted in reverse order — may 
then be understood as representations of the seven periods of the world, and 
of a tenfold division of the government of the world;® of the seven kings 
before the appearance of antichrist;1° of the seven secular powers, viz., the 
Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldaean, Medo-Persian, Greek, Roman, and the final 


1 Hengstenb., Hofm., ete. 6 See Critical Notes. 
2 iv. 6 sqq. 8 vii. 1 sqq. 7 Beng., Hengstenb. 
4 vii. 4; cf. iv. 28 sqq. 8 See what follows, especially ver. 18. 


5 See, in general, on ver. 18. 9 Andr. 10 C. a Lap. 


366 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
still future power with its ten divisions;! of the seven persecutions of 
Christians;? of the seven powers hostile to Christianity, corresponding to 
the seven periods of N. T. history, and of the seven small powers ὃ combined 
with antichrist. But even the expositors who have referred the θηρίον to 
Rome have not always been able to give a definite and intelligible meaning 
to the particular features of the Apocalyptic image. This applies not only 
to those to whom the essential tendency of ch. xiii.* appears to pertain to 
the Papacy,® but also to those who properly abide by heathen Rome, as the 
form of the antichristian secular power contained within the horizon of the 
prophet. If, by a superficial comparison with xvii. 9, the seven heads of 
the beast are interpreted of the seven hills of Rome,® the explanation of the 
ten horns by “the ten servant kings”? is manifestly utterly out of place; 
Ewald also, who refers the seven to the Roman emperors, and the ten to 
the prefects of the provinces, ignores the inner connection and essential rela- 
tionship which exists already, according to xii. 38, between the seven heads 
and the ten horns. — The θηρίον, i.e., the antichristian, Roman secular power, 
in the service of the dragon, at the same time bears both the ten horns and 
seven heads; after this is first declared, a further description (καὶ ἐπὶ τ. κερ., 
x.t.4.) follows, which, on the one hand, is assigned to the ten horns as that 
mark of royal dominion which in xii. 3 appears on the seven heads of the 
᾿ dragon himself, and, on the other, so designates the heads that the blas- 
phemous nature of the entire beast ὃ is illustrated. Yet, while in the descrip- 
tion of the dragon, xii. 3, not only are the seven heads mentioned before the 
ten horns, but diadems also ascribed to the heads, but not to the horns, we 
find in this passage the opposite in both respects; for the subject here 
treated has respect to a signification of the concrete form of the Roman 
Empire, as this is proved by facts. Thus there appear, first of all, ten 
actual rulers; ten persons who, as the actual possessors of the government, 
are symbolized by the ten horns, each furnished with a diadem: (1) 
Augustus, (2) Tiberius, (3) Caligula, (4) Claudius, (5) Nero, (6) Galba, 
(7) Otho, (8) Vitellius, (9) Vespasian, (10) Titus.? Yet the beast, like the 
dragon (xii. 3), has only seven heads, not as though one of these heads bore 
all ten horns, or the horns were distributed inequally among the various 
heads,!° but seven heads bore each a coroneted horn, because, in seven of the 
persons of rulers mentioned, the actual full possession of the empire was 
found, while the three other coroneted horns are to be regarded rather 
between the two heads, —and that, too, corresponding with the actual state 


1 xvii. 12, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Auberlen. France, Spain, Germany, England, Scotland, 
2 Alcas. 3 Stern. Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Bohemia, Poland. 
4 Cf. ch. xvii. 6 Victorin., Hammond, Grot., etc. 


5 Cf. Vitr., who designates as ‘* the ordinary 
exposition of our writers”? the view that the 
seven heads are seven rulers at Rome of di- 
verse kinds, viz., kings, consuls, decemviri, 
military tribunes, dictators, emperors, popes; 
while the ten horns designate the ten king- 
doms, which, according to xvii. 12, are still 
future to John, and are to serve the Pope, of 


7 Hammond, Grot., etc. 

8 Cf. ver. 4. 

9 That the tenth, who corresponds to the 
seventh head, is still future, and that this one 
will have a successor who will actually be the 
last Roman ruler of the world, does not come 
here into discussion. 

10 See on xii. 3. 


CHAP, XIII. 2. 367 


of affairs between the fifth and sixth head,— because these three horns 
represent those persons whose usurped power was not so much the true pos- 
session of the government, as rather a rebellion through which the govern- 
ment itself was in the highest degree endangered. — καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλάς αὐτοῦ 
ὄνομα βλασφημίας. The sing. dvoua? is not to be understood as though there 
were upon each of the seven heads a letter of the blasphemous name, and 
accordingly the entire name was found upon the seven heads taken together, 
as Ziill. thinks, since he ascribes golden frontlets to the heads, and, as the 
beast is the antithesis to the High-Priest, the Messiah, conjectures such an 
inscription as there was on the frontlet of the high-priest, viz., the designa- 
tion qow) wp, consisting of seven letters. But there is no need of such 
superficial determinations; the sing. is meant distributively,? i.e., a name is 
to be regarded as on each of the seven heads, and that is always the same 
name of blasphemy, so that thus all the concrete embodiments of the Roman 
Empire, signified by the heads of the beast, appear as of the same blasphemous 
nature, as in xvii. 3, also, the entire beast, symbolizing the Roman world- 
dominion, appears full of the names of blasphemy. But how the name of 
blasphemy stands on the seven heads, is neither to be asked nor to be 
answered. Bengel, in the sense of many expositors, calls the name “The 
Pope.” Hengstenb. improperly combines the names of blasphemy with 
the horns and crowns, as though one included the other, and thinks that the 
name belonging only to Christ (xix. 16) is usurped by the beast as a blas- 
phemous designation of his world-dominion. But the context‘ affords only 
in general the idea that divine honor is ascribed in a blasphemous way to 
the beast, while a more definite name referring to this is not further ex- 
pressed. Serving for the explanation of the subject, in this sense, is the 
remark already of Beda, although he does not mention Rome: “ For they 
call their kings gods, as well those that have died and been transferred, as 
it were, to heaven and the gods, as those also still on earth, by the name 
Augusti, which is, as they wish, the name of deity.”® See Introduction, 
p: 00.6 [Note LXX., p. 386.] 

Ver. 2. That the description of the form of the beast has been devel- 
oped from Dan. vii. 4 sqq., is at once manifest; but it must not be over- 
looked, that the Apocalyptic portrayal of it has an essentially distinct 
conception and purpose. Daniel portrays four worldly kingdoms succeed- 
ing one another (the Chaldaean, Medan, Persian, and Greek), and that, too, 
in such a way that the forms of beasts which symbolize the first three king- 
doms are not only like a lion, a bear, and a leopard, but also bear within 
themselves other significative marks, while the fourth worldly kingdom is 
represented under the form of a monster, not specifically determined, as, on 
the one hand, by the great iron teeth, the power of this kingdom, devouring 
and crushing all, and on the other, however, by the ten horns, beneath which 
again a small horn comes forth corruptibly, it is symbolized how Antiochus 


τ Cf. ver. 3. Introduction, p. 48. 5 Cf. also Ewald, De Wette, Volkm., etc. 
2 See Critical Notes. 6 Details of various kinds also in Wieder- 
3 De Wette; cf. Ewald, Hengstenb., etc. meister, Der Cdsarenwahnsinn, Hannover, 


4 Cf. ver. 4. 1875, p. 106, etc. 


368 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Epiphanes finally rises as the blasphemous usurper of the Greek Empire 
ruled by the ten kings successively. John, however, describes not four or 
more, but in any case one kingdom; whether he have in mind the undivided 
idea of the world-power in general, which has attained form in many con- 
crete empires, — from the Egyptian to the Roman of that time,!— or, with- 
out definite reference to the earlier empires, refer only to the present Roman. 
At all events, it is incorrect to mangle the undivided form of the beast, and 
to explain perhaps with Wetst., who inverts the order: ‘* The mouth of the 
lion designates the greed and avarice of Galba; the form of the leopard, 
the inconsiderate rashness and inchastity of Otho; the feet of the bear, 
the ferocity and torpor of Vitellius.” But it is no less incorrect when 
Andreas so interprets the combined form of the beast that he refers the 
leopard, etc., to that definite kingdom which he understands by the beast 
in Dan. vii., but in connection therewith attempts to preserve the unity of 
the idea by considering the antichrist, the coming ruler of the Roman Em- 
pire, as possessor at the same time of those three kingdoms; ? as it depends 
in general only upon an inaccurate combination with ch. xvii., when in this 
passage the beast from the sea is regarded the antichrist himself, or his 
kingdom, in the sense that not the present Roman empire, but one not to 
be expected until the end of days, is to be understood ; 8 for the tendency of 
the entire statement of ch. xiii.‘ pertains not to the pure future, as though 
an antichristian efficacy of Satan and the worldly power in his service, as it 
will have place only at the end of days, were to be described, but the world- 
power already present, ruling over all in blasphemous pride and oppressing 
believers,> appears here in a way that undoubtedly makes us recognize its 
antichristian nature as to how it stands in the service of Satan himself. 
This antichristian world-power,—and that, too, in the definite appearance 
of the present Roman Empire, —John beholds in a form of a beast, whose 
threefold composition of the leopard, bear, and lion is to be explained as 
little in the sense of Dan. vii., as the ten horns of ver. 1 are to be com- 
bined with the fourth beast, which in Daniel bears this number of horns. 
Just as the ten coroneted horns (and the seven heads) serve only to designate 
a particular individuality of the Roman Empire symbolized by the entire 
form of beast, entirely apart from the fact that in Daniel a fourth empire 
is symbolized by a monstrous beast with ten horns, so also the combination 
of the Apocalyptic beast does not have the sense that, in the empire signified 
by this beast, either the definite empire’ of Daniel, or all empires in general, 
inclusive of the present Roman and the still future,§ i.e., the Germano- 
Slavic,? appear combined, and accordingly the beast out of the sea signifies 
the world-power only abstractly ;1° but, on the contrary, the form of a beast 
which is compared as a whole to the leopard, which is as rapid in its move- 


1 Hengstenb., etc. 5 Which John, of course, considers to be 
2 mapd. designates the Greek, apx. the Per- such as is immediately judged and brought to 
sian, λέ. the Babylonian empire: ὧν κρατήσει naught by the coming of the Lord. 


ὁ ᾿Αντίχριστος ws Pwpaiwy βασιλεὺς ἐλευσόμε- 6 Against Ziill., De Wette. 
vos. 7 Andr., etc. 8 Hengstenb. 
8 Against C. a Lap., Hofm., etc. 9 Auberlen. 


4 Cf. already ch. xii. 10 «The ungodly world-power as a whole.” 


CHAP. XIII. 3. 369 


ments as it is strong,} is furnished with feet like the paws of a bear,? while 
its mouth is like the jaws of a lion, so that thus the entire monstrous beast, 
which unites in itself the most dreadful weapons of the strongest beasts, 
informs us of the rapacity and power of the Roman Empire displayed in the 
same. The special interpretation of particular features reaches too far, and 
is, therefore, arbitrary, as in Beda: πάρδ., “on account of the variety of 
nations; 8. dpx., “on account of spite and madness;” 2é., “on account of 
bravery of body and pride of tongue.” 

καὶ ἔδωκεν, «7.4. Here is shown the reason why the dragon, who in xii. 17 
has entered into a conflict against believers, has come upon the shore of the 
’ sea (xii. 18): he has called the beast from the sea in order to equip him with 
his own power, and thus to make him an instrument of his wrath. In 
what way the dragon accomplished this impartation, ἔδωκεν αὑτῷ, we dare not 
ask, since John does not declare it, for properly he does not attempt to state 
what is not made visible. — Worthy of notice is the inner relation of the 
three points, τὴν δύναμιν abt., τ. θρόνον αὐτ., and ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην. The δύναμις 
imparted to the beast, which is expressly marked as diabolical (div. αὐτοῦ), is 
shown in his power over freedom and life (ver. 10), and the entire business 
of men (ver. 17). But the dragon also, by giving his throne to the.beast, 
invests it with a βασιλεία, so that now a throne can be ascribed to the 
beast himself (xvi. 10): hence the more definite view of the worldly domin- 
ion of the beast is here presented. Finally, the ἐξουσία μεγάλη + designates the 
great, yet always definite and limited, plenitude of power, in order by 
the medium of that δύναμις to work within the entire sphere of nature and 
to serve the purpose of the dragon. 

Ver. 3. καὶ μίαν ἔκ τ. xed. With the accus., an express εἶδον is, indeed, not 
placed,® but its idea results® from the connection, since the εἶδον, ver. 1, 
which is repeated besides in ver. 2, continues to be effective. —d¢ today. 
The ὡς stands just as in v. 6, only that in this passage the circumstance 
which explains how that one head bore the marks of an actual mortal 
wound, and yet could be represented like the rest in all the vigor of life, 
is expressly designated: καὶ 7 πλ. τ. θαν. abr. ἐθεραπεύθη. ---- The more significant 
that is, which is said in ver. 3a., and the more this special feature of the 
entire image of the beast from the sea is adapted thereto, in order to adjust 
and test the correct interpretation of the whole, the more certain, on the 
other hand, to become helpless here, is every exposition that misunderstands 
the image of the beast as a whole. Hengstenb., Ebrard, Auberlen, etc., 
who regard the θηρίον an image of the world-power in general, infer from 
xvii. 10, with entire impropriety, that the head wounded unto death, and 
again healed, is the sixth, i.e., that whereby the Roman form of the world- 
power is symbolized. But although Hengstenb. further interprets that 


1 Cf. Jer. v.63; Hos. xiii. 7; Sir. xxviii. 23, gods, males, females, the greatest, the least,” 


where, in order to illustrate dreadful strength, etc. Coccejus: “ Of various color. For to this 
the leopard is compared with the lion and the beast belong Christians serving bishops, and 
wolf. yet constituting another source of faith, also 
2 ὡς ἄρκ. Cf.iv. 6,8. Var. Lect. ix. 7-9. Arians, Mussulmans, ete.’ Vitr., etc. 
3 Cf. Grot.: ‘‘ The leopard is an animal of 4 Cf. vi. 8, ix. 3, x. 19. 


various color; thus Roman idolatry had as its 5 Against the false Rec. 6 Cf. iv. 4. 


370 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. - 


“by Christ’s atonement” a mortal wound is inflicted upon Roman worldly 
affairs and heathenism, — a wound which, therefore, could appear as again 
healed, because the outward condition of the Roman Empire still continued, 
as John himself must have felt this ungodly power in his banishment to 
Patmos, — Ebrard and Auberlen prefer an interpretation expressly rejected 
by Hengstenb. They observe, that by the migration of nations the mortal 
wound was given the Roman Empire; but that this wound was healed, 
because a new “ Roman Empire” had arisen, whose chief strength rests just 
in the Germanic nations. This Holy Roman Empire, however, appears as 
the sixth head of the beast, healed of its mortal wound, because its Christi- 
anity is secularized, ay, in all Christian appearance, often of a directly anti- 
christian activity; viz., in the Papacy. But the Christian aspect of this 
form of the world-power is positively expressed in the fact that the head 
of the beast (ὡς ἐσφαγμ.) bears in itself a certain resemblance to the Lamb 
(ὡς éodayu., v. 6). The mode of exposition thus reverts in essentials to the 
old Protestant; only that this was the more correct, so far as it did not 
acknowledge the vague significance of the θηρίον of the world-power in the 
abstract, but understood it as a definite reference to Rome. Thus Calov., 
in dependence on Luther, explains “ ‘the beast wounded,’ most correctly, of 
the Roman Empire, harassed by the invasions of the barbarians, who for 
‘more than three centuries wounded, devastated, and held Rome, so that,, 
during that whole time, there was no Western emperor. It was also healed 
by the medical aid of Charlemagne and Leo III.” Coccejus understood the 
head as the Grecian part of the Roman Empire: “In this part the beast re- 
ceived a fatal wound when Julian restored the worship of the gods.” The 
ἐθεραπεύθη is interpreted: “Julian was removed, and Jovian, the Catholic, 
succeeded him.” Phil. Nicolai referred the wounding to the dominion of 
seven hundred years by the Moors in Spain; the healing, to the expulsion 
of the enemy by King Ferdinand. Most consistently Vitringa explains 
that the mortal wound is the humiliation of Pope Alexander III. by the 
Emperor Frederick in the year 1160, and that the healing is the humili- 
ation of the Emperor by the Pope in the year 1177:1 on the other hand, 
Bengel, with his far-reaching interpretation,? stands already nearer the 
moderns, as Ebrard and Auberlen. But the former, as well as the latter, 
interpretation is rejected both by the connection of ch. xii.8 and by the 
particular points in xiii. 1, 2 The θηρίον is just as certainly not the 
abstract world-power, as the seven heads are not particular “phases of 
the world-power,” but kings, and that, too, Roman kings. Besides this, 
the quid pro quo which is ascribed to the writer of the Apocalypse, by 
representing him as describing the Holy Roman Empire as the empire of 


1 As a new interpretation, Vitr. proposes. 
“The first five fallen (xvii. 10) heads are five 
distinguished popes before the Reformation: 
Gregory VII., Alexander III., Innocent III., 
Boniface VII[., John XXII.; after the Refor- 
_ mation follow Paul III., Paul VIII., and 
finally the eighth, still future Pope, who shall 
put to death Christ’s witnesses ”’ (xi. 7). 


2‘ You may see the paroxysms both of 
wounding and healing in the history of Gregory 
VII., Paschal II., Calist II., Alexander 11]., 
and others.. Whatever adversity then hap- 
pened is wounding; and whatever prosperity, 
healing.” 

3 Auberlen has, indeed, found the migration 
of nations in xii. 15 sqq. 


CHAP. XIII, 3. 3871 


heathen Rome which has been again revived, is compatible neither with 
historical truth nor with a sound conception of biblical prophecy. In 
both respects, it is impossible to regard an historical development, which 
is dependent upon the Christian element, and which—in all its un- 
christian and antichristian deterioration — yet remains in its entire course 
Christian, and has produced truly holy fruit, as a head of this beast of the 
dragon. The only indication in the text, which apparently supports such a 
‘misconception, Auberlen, ete., have found in the expression ὡς ἐσφαγμ., as, 
from the comparison of v. 6, they have inferred that thereby there is 
ascribed to the healed head a Christian, i.e., an apparently Christian, life 
and nature. But supposing, what does not necessarily lie in the expression, 
that a significant contrast were intended between the Lamb standing there 
as slain, and the head of the beast wounded, as it were, to death: is it, then, 
not much more correct to explain, as Victorin. already has done,! viz., that 
the person represented by the head wounded and again healed is to be 
regarded as a pretended Christ in whom the sufferings and resurrection 
of the Lord appear to be imitated ? 

If we turn from such explanations as do not need a special refutation,? 
that of Victorin. is first presented, which, being brought again to notice by 
Corrodi? and Eichhorn, has been of late resolutely defended by Liicke, 
De Wette, Bleek, Baur, Volkmar, Hilgenf., E. Renan, ete 4 The Roman 
historians of the report bruited shortly after Nero’s death, that he was still 
living, and would again appear,® are quoted. This opinion, which was cur- 
rent especially in Asia,® is recognized by the writer of the Apoc.; and two 
circumstances concur, which seem to greatly urge the explanation from that 
fancy of the enigmatical discourse concerning the head of the beast wounded 
to death, and again healed. On the one hand, it has penetrated Christian 
literature, viz., the Apocalyptic:7 on the other hand, it appears to give a 


1 “This one, therefore, viz., Nero, being 
raised, God will send as a king worthy of the 
worthy, and a Messiah such as the Jews have 
merited.” Cf. Beda: ‘ Antichrist, pertaining 
to the heads of the earthly kingdom, in im- 
itation of our true Head, professes to have 
risen again, as though having been slain, and 
presents himself for men’s reception, instead 
of Christ, who truly did this.” In like man- 
ner, Zeger, C. a Lap., ete. 

2 Grot. on ws ἐσφ.: ‘*The Capitol was 
burned while the Vitellians and Flavians 
warred with one another.” —é@epan.: ‘* For 
the same Vespasian restored the Capitol, who 
also restored the Roman Empire, and, indeed, 
with great pomp of idolatry.” Ziillig, who in 
ver. 18 finds the name of Balaam: ‘ Balaam, 
slain as anti-Moses, now has returned to life, 
with seven heads, as the anti-Messiah, as the 
one for whom he will now be regarded re- 
turned from death to life.” 

3 Krit. Gesch. des Chiliasmus, Ziir., vol. ii., 
p- 308 sqq. 


4 Der Antichrist, Germ. ed., Leipz. and 
Paris, 1873, p. 278. 

5 Tacit., Hist.,ii.8: ‘* About the same time, 
Achaia and Asia were terrified by a false ru- 
mor, as though Nero were approaching, and a 
fluctuating rumor concerning his death, the ma- 
jority, on this account, thinking and believing 
that he was alive.’’ Cf. Sueton., Vero, c. 573 
Dio Chrys., Or., xxi., ed. Reiske., T.I., p. 504. 

6 So that a false Nero, who availed himself 
of this in a remarkable way, found a following 
among the Parthians. Sueton., ]. ¢c.; Tacit., 
fist., i. 2: “ War also with the Parthians, 
near at hand, was stirred up by the farce of 
the pretended Nero.” 

7 Sibyll. Orac., ed. Serv. Gall., L. VIII., p. 
688: ὅταν γ᾽ ἐπανέλθη ἐκ περάτων γαίης ὃ φυγὰξβ 
μητροκτόνος ἐλθών [** When the matricide fugi- 
tive returns from the opposite part of the 
earth’’]. Cf. p.716; L. V., p. 547; Sulp. Sev., 
Hist., 8., . II., Opp. ed.; G. Hom., Lugd. 
But., 1647, p. 373: ‘Certainly his body, viz., 
that of Nero, was slain; whence it is believed, 


372 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. - 


definite explanation of xvii. 8, and the one best harmonizing with ver. 3, 
viz., that. Nero, slain by his own hand, appears returning from the abyss of 
hell, and working again as the living antichrist. — But against this mode 
of exposition it is to be remarked: (1) The writer of the Apocalypse in 
no way betrays such impurity and limitation of faith and Christian culture, 
that without injustice a superstition dare be ascribed to him which the 
Roman authors already had derided.1 In any case, if John subscribed to 
that illusion, nothing more could any longer be said concerning a truly pro- 
phetical character of the Apoc., dependent upon inspiration, and concerning 
its canonical authority.2 (2) In reference to xvii. 8,3 it must be mentioned 
already here, how difficult it is by the θηρίον which is there described, to 
understand Nero alone, who is symbolized, just as in ch. xiii., by one 
of the seven heads of the beast. (3) But it is also in the highest degree 
doubtful whether the Nero-myth were current already at the close of the 
first century, as they try to find it in John: on the contrary, unmistakable 
traces indicate that the original Nero-myth received the form in which 
it is now by an anachronism, regarded as utilized in the Apoc. only by 
combining with it misunderstood passages like Rev. xiii. 3, xvii. 8, and 
2 Thess. ii. 3 sqq. Sueton., Tacit., and Dio Chryst. by no means say that 
it was their opinion that the actually dead Nero had returned from the lower 
regions to life; but they report‘ that it was not properly known in what way 
Nero had died, and that, therefore,® the report originated that he was not at 
all dead, but had escaped to the Parthians, and would return to take ven- 
geance on his enemies. So it stands in the sibylline books, where Nero 
appears as a fugitive,® who is to return from the ends of the earth, his tem- 
porary place of refuge.?. That this Nero-myth was diffused among Chris- 
tians by the authority of the sibylline books, is attested by Lactantius, who 


that, although he pierced himself with the 
sword, yet that he was restored by the healing 
of his wound, as it is written of him: And the 
stroke of his death was healed, in order that he 
might be sent at the end of the world to exer- 
cise the mystery of iniquity.”’ 

1 Dio Chryst., l. ¢.: τρόπον τινὰ οὐχ ἅπαξ 
αὐτοῦ τεθνηκότος, ἀλλὰ πολλάκις μετὰ τῶν 
σφόδρα οἰηθέντων αὐτον ζῆν. 

2 This statement is not based on a narrow- 
minded conception of the canon (Volkm.), but 
asserts the demands which justice and cau- 
tious piety make of exegetes. The Apoc., with 
respect to its other contents, stands so high 
that it is utterly impossible that it should ad- 
vance any superstitious statement directly con- 
tradictory to the simplest Christian faith and 
thought (also against Weiss., p. 34). But if it 
be exegetically proved that this is nevertheless 
the case, it appears necessary to surrender the 
deutero-canonical authority of the book. But, 
in spite of all its dazzling appearance, the exe- 
gesis of Volkm., as well as of Ewald, etc., is 
on this point incorrect. 

3 See on the passage. 


4 Cf. especially Dio Chryst., l.c.: καὶ οὕτως 
ἀπέστησαν am’ αὐτοῦ Kal ἠνάγκασαν ὅτῳ ποτὲ 
τρόπῳ ἀπολέσθαι αὐτόν" οὐδέπω γὰρ καὶ νῦν τοῦτό 
γε δῆλόν ἐστιν [““ΔΑπᾶ thus they stood aloof 
from him, and urged the question in what way 
he had died; for this even now was not as yet 
manifest ’’]. 

5 Of. Tacit., J. c. 

6 φυγάς, L. VIII., ver. 71; ed. Friedlieb, 
φεύγων, L. V., ver. 364. 

7 In the same sense also is the passage, L. 
V., ver. 33, to be understood. ἔσται καὶ aiatos 
ὀλοίϊος, εἶτ᾽ ἀνακάμψει, Where Gallaeus (‘ will 
utterly be destroyed”’) and Friedlieb (‘the 
pernicious vanishes away”) mistranslate the 
ἄϊστος. Itissaid only that the pernicious one, 
i.e., Nero, will become invisible, viz., by flight, 
but will return. Itis altogether a perversion 
when the sibylline expressions concerning the 
return of Nero are compared with the Apoc., 
in order to make a Nero redivivus acceptable 
here; for in the sibylline books the chief mat- 
ter is lacking, as, e.g., Hilgenf. himself ac- 
knowledges (Zeitschr. 7. Wiss. Th., 1871, p. 
39. Cf. also, 1869, p. 421 sqq.). 


CHAP. XIII. 3. 373 


explains it not only as madness, but also indicates its natural origin:1 “Cast 
down, therefore, from the head of the government, and fallen from its sum- 
mit, the impotent tyrant suddenly was nowhere present, so that a place not 
even of burial might appear on earth for so wicked a beast. Whence some 
madmen believe that he has been translated and reserved alive, the sibyl 
saying that the fugitive matricide shall come from the ends of the earth,” 
etc. Therefore Lactantius also knows nothing, as yet, of a resurrection and 
return of the dead Nero, but he has in view the faith of some madmen, sup- 
ported by the sibylline books, that the still living Nero had found a refuge 
somewhere at the ends of the earth, whence he will return as a precursor of 
_ the antichrist.? But this superstition, still diffused at his time, Lact. regards 
. so senseless, because thereby a life a century long must be presupposed to 
_ Nero; while the entire fable could be explained without difficulty, from the 
fact that the grave of Nero was unknown, —an explanation which is proved 
_ to be right, inasmuch as Nero was actually buried with the greatest silence.® 
In Lactantius, therefore, the Nero-myth, designated as senseless, does not 
have the form in which they want to find it presented by the writer of the 
Apoc. — Augustine is the first to testify to the existence of the expectation 
that Nero would arise from the dead, and return as antichrist, since he ex- 
pressly remarks that this form of the myth, by the side of the older, has 
resulted from an interpretation of 2 Thess. ii. 3 sqq. that is as bold as it is 
perverted: ὁ “ Some think that this® was said of the Roman Empire, —as his 
declaration, ‘The mystery of iniquity doth already work,’ he wanted to be 
understood of Nero, whose deeds seemed as though of antichrist. Whence 
some suspect that he will rise again, and be the antichrist. But others think 
that he was not slain, but rather had withdrawn so as to be regarded slain, 
and was concealed alive in the vigor of the age, in which he was when he 
was believed to have died, until he would be revealed at his own time, and 
be restored to the government. But to me such presumption of those think- 
ing these things is very wonderful.” In this connection, also, Augustine 
does not mention the Apoc.® This is done by Sulp. Severus,’ who, however, 
does not combine the myth of the revivification of the dead Nero with Apoe. 
xiii. 3, but under the presumption that Nero had actually committed suicide 8 
records the entirely peculiar turn to the matter: It is believed that the wound 
which Nero inflicted upon himself was healed, and that he still lives, and at 
the end of the world will return as antichrist. The complete form of the 
myth is given first by Victorin., who expressly says that the actually de- 
ceased Nero would be again raised by God, and be sent as the pseudo-Mes- 
siah for judgment upon the ungodly; but Victorin.’s own words?® betray the 


1 De Mort. Persec., α. 2. the antichrist of Daniel, because of his perse- 

2 « A precursor of the devil, and going be- cution of the Christians (Jerome on Dan. xi. 
fore him as he comes to devastate the earth, 28: ‘* Whence many of our writers think that 
and overthrow the human race.” because of the greatness of his cruelty and 

8 Eutrop., Hist. Rom. vii. 18: ** The remains baseness, the Domitian Nero would be anti- 
of Nero, which were buried in a humble way.” christ ’’), does not belong here. 

* De Civ. D., L. XX., c. 19, § 3. 7. 1, 85 

ΒΕ ΟΣ vere t= 8 Etiamsi se gladis transfixit. 


® That Nero had sometimes been regarded 9 Nunc ergo caetera. 


8T4 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


origin of the myth thus fashioned, in the same way as Augustine 1 testifies to 
the origin of another application of the myth from 2 Thess. ii. It cannot, 
therefore, in any way be asserted upon an historical basis, that the writer of 
the Apocalypse, when he represents one of the heads of the beast as wounded 
to death and again healed, depends upon an idea current at his time, con- 
cerning the return of Nero raised from the dead,—for such an idea does 
not belong as yet to his time, —but it must be asserted that the writer of 
the Apoc. has himself fashioned this manner of expressing the Nero-myth. 
No one, however, has ventured this. 

Any other explanation of ver. 3 is therefore hardly possible, than that 
indicated already in the Introduction.2, By a combination with xvii. 8-11, 
the result is attained that the mortal wound cannot be referred to the sixth,? 
but must be referred to the fifth, head of the beast. This is correctly ac- 
knowledged by Ewald, Liicke, De Wette, etc., as they are further right in 
accounting Nero as the last of the fallen kings. But to proceed from this to 
the interpretation of xiii. 3, advocated by Ewald, Liicke, etc., — which is proved 
to be just as untenable, —is not only not demanded by xvii. 8-11, but is 
prohibited, because it is not said there that the fifth fallen king, i.e., Nero, 
would return as the eighth, but that the future eighth would be the personi- 
fied beast himself. But of this nothing whatever is said in ch. xiil.; it is 
not once to be perceived from ch. xiii. that an eighth king is at all to be 
expected, so that this point (xvii. 11) is not in any way to be introduced 
into xili. 3. The healing of the mortal wound certainly cannot, therefore, 
refer to one of the heads of the beast (the fifth), as it is neither said in 

ch. xvii., nor agrees with the statement in xii. 3, that the fifth fallen 
᾿ (deceased) king will return as the eighth. On the contrary, the healing of 
the mortal wound on the fifth head of the beast must correspond to that 
which is stated in ch. xvii., so that the beast is not, and yet is; viz., it is in 
so far as the sixth king is. The existence of the sixth king is the healing 
of the mortal wound on the fifth head, whose infliction caused the beast not 
to be, and whose healing again caused the beast, nevertheless, to be. Thus 
ch. xvii. gives the riddle, and ch. xiil. 8 the clew whereby the riddle is 
solved. The mortal wound is inflicted upon the (fifth) head of the beast, 
and the interregnum immediately succeeding. It is to be observed, that it 
is not at-all said that the coroneted horn on the (fifth) head was stricken 
off, and grew again, —this would attach the idea expressly to the person of 
Nero, and correspond with the opinion of Ewald, Liicke, De Wette, and 
Volkm.,— but that, in accordance with the distinction between the heads 
and the horns (cf. ver. 1), the idea of the Roman Empire, so far as it was 
under the Emperor Nero, is expressed 4 This empire, designated by the 
fifth head of the beast, received a mortal wound when Nero, the bearer of 
the empire; and the last of the race of the Caesars which had founded the 
empire, committed suicide, and that, too, under the compulsion of the rebel- 
lion of a usurper (Galba), who, as little as his two successors (Otho, Vitel- 


Les 2 p. 47 aq. that the beast was wounded on its head, ete. 
3 Hengstenb., Auberlen. But what in ver. 3 he is wrong in omitting, is 
4 Volkm. urges that 1n xiii. 3, it is not said correctly said in ver. 12. 


CHAP, XIII. 5-7. Sioa 


lius), could in any way be regarded the restorer of the empire which was 
destroyed with Nero. The healing of that mortal wound did not ensue 
until Vespasian, the founder of a new dynasty, restored the empire, as its 
actual possessor, to its ancient strength and vitality. Thus, at the founda- 
tion of the prophetical enigmatical discourse of the writer of the Apoc. con- 
cerning the beast wounded to death and again restored, concerning the three 
coroneted horns which, nevertheless, do not stand upon particular heads 
(ver. 1), and concerning the beast which is not and yet is, there lies the 
same historical view which is declared by the Roman historians, in their 
representation of the threefold regency between the death of Nero and the 
accession of Vespasian, only as a sad interregnum.} 

Ver. 30, ver. 4. καὶ ἐθαύμασεν ---- ὀπίσω τοῦ θηρίου. The pregn. construction 
gives the view as to how the astonishment at the succession is occasioned.? 
Beng. also shows how this expression is supported historically: in the cruci- 
fixion, e.g., this prophecy is fulfilled. — The amazement of the whole earth 
— for thus far the dominion of the beast extends (ver. 2) — may be referred 
especially to what is said in ver. 3a; for the worship of the dragon, as also 
of the beast equipped by him, that which results from ver. 2b is expressly 
attached as the reason. But not only is the προσκυνεῖν on the part of the 
inhabitants of the earth a robbery, which, in the service of the dragon and 
his beast, they perpetrate on the one true God, but even the phraseology in 
which they express their worship* seems like a blasphemous parody of the 
praise with which the O. T. Church celebrated the incomparable glory of 
the living God.5. [See Note LXXI., p. 387.] And if the inhabitants of the 
earth declare further καὶ τίς δύναται, «.7.A., back of this challenging and 
triumphing question lies concealed the desire that, in compliance with the 
purpose of the dragon,® they might begin the conflict with those who do not 
worship the beast (cf. ver. 7). 

Vv. 5-7. As the conception of the form of the beast in general (vv. 1, 2) 
is conditioned by the Danielian prototype, so also the individual chief 
features which describe the activity of the beast are in conformity with 
what Daniel says of antichrist. Not only the schematical determination 
of time for the antichristian activity of the beast, forty-two months,’ is 
derived from Dan. vii. 25, xii. 7; but also the characteristic representation of 
the presumptuous, blasphemous speech,’ and of his conflict with the saints,® 
makes the beast appear in the same way as the concretion of the antichristian 
world-power withstanding the N. T. communion of saints, as in Daniel’s view 
Antiochus Epiphanes arrayed himself against the O. T. Church. But Ziull. 


1 Sueton., l. c.; Dio Cass., Hist. Rom., ed. 
J. Leuncl., Hannov., 1606, p. 7353. 

2 Cf. Acts. v. 37, xx. 30. Grot., Ziill., De 
Wette, etc. 

δ Cf. ver. 8, iii. 10. 

4 Coccejus feels the difficulty of carrying 
out here his interpretation of the θηρίον ; for, if 
the θηρίον is the papacy, it appears objection- 
able to represent its adherents as worshippers 
of the dragon. But he says: “1ὴ word, it is 
true, they praised God and Christ, who had 


given such power to the Church; but in fact, 
because it was not the Church, but a beast, and 
the worldly power which he claimed for him- 
self was power conceded by the dragon trans- 
forming himself into an angel of light, he 
whom they adored was the dragon.” 

5 Cf. Isa. xl. 25, xliv. 7, xlvi. 5; Ps. xxxv. 
10, ciii. 5; Mic. vii. 8; Coccej., Ewald. 

6 xii. 17. ΤῸΝ χὸ δ, πῇ 14; 

8 στόμα λαλοῦν μεγάλα κ. βλασφ. Cf. Dan. 
vii. 8, 20, 25. 9 Cf. Dan. vii. 21. 


376 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. | 


finds incorrectly also in 70 an analogy with Dan. vii. 14, in that the sense 
that what is there ascribed to Christ, is here declared concerning the anti- 
christian universal monarchy of the beast, as the contrary of the Messiah; 
for the ἐξουσία of the beast, i.e., the definite supreme power thereof, adapted 
to its position and task, corresponds neither to the kingly glory over all 
nations granted to the Son of man,! nor to his peculiar ἐξουσία, which, as the 
βασιλεία itself, is marked as one that is eternal.2 The ἐδόθη, vv. 5, 7,3 which 
refers to the ultimate ground of divine authority, contains for believers a 
consolatory determination which belongs to the ἔδωκεν, ver. 2; for only in 
accordance with God’s order can the dragon equip his beast, and only within 
‘the limits fixed by God can the beast work in virtue of the ἐξουσία ascribed to 
him. — στόμα λαλοῦν μεγάλα καὶ βλασφημίας. The supercilious speaking of great 
things is already in itself the testimony of an egotistic boasting of one de- 
spising the living God, and then becomes openly blasphemous when the pre- 
sumptuous speeches have such definite reference to God as is expressed, e.g., 
in ver. 6; cf. also the declaration put, in ver. 4, into the mouth of the adher- 
ents of the beast. The historical foundation for the description, ver. 5a, 
is formed by the declarations repeated in various ways, in which Roman 
insolence not only ascribed to itself absolute dominion over the world, but 
also expressly gave divine names and divine honor to the city, the empire, 
and the emperor.4—ojoa. In the following accus., the express object to 
ποιῆσαι may be found,’ and with Luther, Ewald, etc., the explanation may be 
rendered: Power was given him to bring in forty-two months besides; viz., 
in the manner described in ver. 5a. But this mere determination of time 
appears too circumstantial for the Apoc.; hence it is explained better by 
Vitr., Ziill., De Wette, Hengstenb., etc., after the analogy of Dan. viii. 24, 
xi. 28, 80, 82;° Ps. xxxvii. 5, where the ποιεῖν likewise occurs without any 
express designation of the object: power was given him to work, to ply his 
business, for forty-two months. In connection with this it is to be observed,® 
that thus the two parts of ver. 5 briefly designate what is more fully de- 
scribed in ver. 6 (cf. ver. 5a) and ver. 7 (cf. ver. 5b). — The prefixed 
βλασφημίας πρὸς τὸν θεόν (ver. 6) is more definitely specialized in a threefold 
way, to which already the plural βλασφημίας πρ. τ. 6., Which is here certain, 
points, viz., first, βλασφημῆσαι τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, Whereby is designated the calumni- 
ation directed immediately against God himself, which is especially fulfilled 
by the beast usurping for himself the divine names and honor; secondly, 
καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ, i.e., as it is also made manifest from the following 
words,’ heaven, which, as God’s tabernacle, is an object of the blasphemous 
speeches of the beast; and, finally, καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ σκηνοῦντας, because 
it is God’s gracious work, that he has opened heaven as his tabernacle for 
those who now dwell with him therein. The two last kinds of blasphemy 
are mediate, but they have place just as certainly as the world-power, repre- 


1 καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ ἀρχὴ Kal ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ 3 Of. vi. 4, 8, vii. 2, ix. 5. 

βασιλεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοὶ φυλαὶ καὶ γλῶσσαι 4 Cf. Introduction, p. 51. 

αὐτῷ δουλεύσουσιν. 5 Cf. Acts xv. 33; 2 Cor. xi. 25; Jas. iv. 18. 
3 ἡ ἐξ. αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ παρε- 6 Vitr., Hengstenb. 


λεύσεται, K.T.A, 7 Cf. xxi. 3. 


CHAP. XIII. 8. 3T7 


- \ 

sented by the beast, speaks only with mockery of that which was to believers 
the home towards which their entire hope was directed; and accordingly the 
world-power stood in opposition to the inexhaustible source of their consola- 
tion and patience. — πόλεμον ποιῆσαι μετὰ τ. dy. To the instrument of the 
dragon it is given —on God’s part — to fulfil what the dragon had in mind 
when he prepared the beast. — καὶ νικῆσαι αὐτούς ; viz., in so far as the saints 
must succumb to the power of the beast, and suffer imprisonment, banish- 
ment, death, and all kinds of @Aiyu.2 Besides, it is just in this that the 
true victory of saints consists.? —«. ἐδ. abr. ἐξουσία ἐπὶ πᾶσαν φυλὴν Kal — ἔθνος. 
Ewald, by determining the ἐξουσία according to the measure of what immedi- 
ately precedes,* reaches the erroneous conception that the ἐπὶ πᾶσ. φυλὴν, k.7.2., 
is to be referred to Christians ® But the expression designates, by its four 
specifications,® the entire number of the inhabitants of the earth who easily 
appear in opposition to the saints; hence the ἐξουσία ἐπὶ mao. φυλὴν, x.7.A., is the 
great and sovereign power? which is granted to the beast with his empire. 
Because of this ἐξουσία he is in a position to war victoriously against the 
saints. But as in ver. 5a, so also here, where there is a definitive designa- 
tion of the ἐξουσία on which the entire dreadful activity of the beast depends, 
the consolatory thought lies in the background, that even though the supreme 
power, which the dragon has given (ver. 2) to the beast, is so great that it 
extends over the whole world, yet it is at last only by the Divine bestow- 
ment, and therefore beneath the Divine order and limitation, that the beast 
possesses, and can exercise, his ἐξουσία. 

Ver. 8. καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν, κιτιλ. Notwithstanding δὲ (αὐτῷ), undoubt- 
edly the correct reading, αὐτόν, cannot be explained by the reference to the 
king, of the masc. in which the beast itself, xvii. 11, appears personified ; * 
for that entirely special idea must be definitely indicated within ch. xiii. if 
without any thing further it is thus to be diverted. The αὐτόν pertains, how- 
ever, to the chief subject ὁ δράκων.Ό The worship of the dragon is here men- 
tioned immediately after the description of the beast, for the same reason 
as ver. 4 in connection with ver. 3; the more mightily the instrument of 
the dragon is presented to the inhabitants of the earth, the more naturally 
they come to the adoration of that which itself only serves the beast. Cor- 
responding with this is also the future form προσκυνήσουσιν As the activity 
of the beast, according to its decisive part, still impends,!° so also the ado- 
ration of the dragon occasioned thereby. — ov οὐ γέγραπται τ. ὄν. αὐτοῦ. The 
sing. of the relative, to which, according to the Hebraic way, the demonstr. 
is.added,!? is explained 18 by the presentation of the details which are com- 
prised in the entire κατοικ. ἐπὶ τ. y.—év τῶ βιβλίῳ, x.7.A. Without doubt, the 


Wf, xii: 17; ΧΗ. Ὡς 6 Cf. v. 9, xi. 9, xiv. 6, xvii. 15. 
2 Of. x4. 7. 7 Also Ew. ii. 
3 Of. xii. 11, ii. 10 sq. 8 Hengstenb. 
4 «Tt is allowed to perpetrate this slaughter 9 Cf., on the other hand, ver. 4. 
throughout all lands and nations.’”’ 10 Of. ver. 7, where it is first given the beast, 
5‘ From the nature of the topic and on God’s part, what it is to do. 
thought, it is apparent that only Christians 11 See Critical Notes. 
dwelling every where throughout the world are 12 111, 8, xii. 6, 14. 


to be here understood.” 13 De Wette. 14 Cf. xvii. 8. 


378 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


concluding clause ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου belongs to γέγραπται, not to the ἐσφαγ- 
μένου, as neither the explanation of the eternal predestination of the death 
of Christ,? nor that of the sufferings of Christ in his people from Abel on,® 
agrees with the expression and the connection of this passage. The charac- 
teristic of the inhabitants of the earth, in contrast with the saints refusing 
to worship the dragon, contains already, in the most pregnant manner, all 
the points upon which the patience of the saints expressly emphasized 
immediately afterwards, ver. 10, depends. Those who worship the Lamb 
slain, of course, must suffer persecution; but just to the Lamb slain belongs 
the book of life,t in which from eternity the names of believers are written: 
they, therefore, like the Lamb, conquer by their victory,5 and through all 
θλῖψις pass to the glory of eternal life,* while the enemy, in spite of his 
temporary victory,’ incurs sure judgment. [See Note LXXII., p. 387.] 

Vv. 9,10. This consolatory assurance is expressly urged as one ex- 
tremely important.’ — εἴ τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν. The jus talionis 
is exercised by the righteous judgment of God.® The brevity of the ellip- 
tical expression corresponds very well with the immutability of the strict 
sentence, in case the second εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν stands without further definition. 
—On the two kinds of persecution, cf. ii. 10, 18, vi. 10, xi. 7. Volkm. 
regards the threat of the sword as directed against Nero. But how is it 
conceivable if ver. 3 refers, according to Volkmar’s interpretation, to Nero? 
— ὧδε ἐστι 7 ὑπομονῇ, x.7.A. The formula ὧδε ἐστιν is in itself so indefinite that 
it can express both gradations of the idea: “ Here must the patience, the 
wisdom,!! of believers be displayed,” 12 and “ Here patience is present, here 
lies its foundation and source.” In this passage, and xiv. 12, the latter idea 
results from the connection; by the dde, «.7.4., an allusion is made to what 
has just been said, ver. 10, yea already in ver. 8; viz., to that in which the 
patience of the saints consists, who by their faith lay hold of that divine 
consolation. Otherwise, ver. 18 and xvii. 9. 

Vv. 11-17. The second beast, which John sees rising from the earth, is 
described as an accomplice of the first beast; by deceitful speeches and 
miraculous signs, he leads astray the inhabitants on earth to the worship of 
the beast from the sea.— That this second θηρίον ---- which appears in this 
form from the beginning as essentially related to the first beast 8— is a per- 
sonification of false prophecy, is correctly recognized already by Irenaeus.4 
John himself gives this interpretation, xvi. 13, xix. 20, xx. 10. But from 
the connection with vv. 1-10, the more restricted determination results, that 
the subject treated is that form of heathen-Roman prophecy which was 
just as magical as mantic; and this peculiarity, with all its auguries, inter-. 
pretations of omens, etc., formed an important support of the Roman secular 


τ Hammond, Beng., Heinr., Ewald, Ziill., 8 Ver. 9. Cf. ii. 7, 11. 
De Wette, Hengstenb. 9 Cf. xviii. 6, xix. 2. 
2 1 Pet. i. 20; Beda, Eichh. 10 ὑπάγει, xvii. 8. See Critical Notes. 
3 Cf. C. a Lap. 11 Ver. 18, xvii. 9. 
4 111. 5. 12 De Wette, Hengstenb. 
5 Cf. iii. 21. 18 See on ver. 1. 


6 Cf. vii. 14. 7 Ver. 7. 14 7. V., c. 28, 2, ed. Stieren, I., p. 794. 


CHAP. XIII. 11-17. 3879 


power.? The various references to papal Rome? are precluded by the expla- 
nation of ver. 1 sqq. [Note LXXIII., p. 387.] 

ἐκ τὴς γῆς. Incorrectly, Grot.: “private origin.” Ewald’s explanation 
that the continent of Asia® is to be regarded the theatre for those who had 
prophesied the return of Nero—even apart from the difficult limitation of 
the idea τ. y#¢ —has no support in ver. 3.4 The explanation also of Heng- 
stenb., that by ἐκ τ. γῆς in contrast with ἐκ τῶν ἄνω, or ἐκ τοῦ ovpavod,® the 
earthly, worldly nature ® is indicated, does not lie at all in the context. The 
ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἴ has respect, on the contrary, to the idea of the κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τὴς 
γῆς. The beast rises from the earth, because he is to work upon the whole 
earth, and all the inhabitants of the earth §—xépara δύο ὅμοια ἀρνίῳ. The 
“compendious comparison ”® is not acknowledged by Ebrard when he com- 
mends the explanation as probable: “The beast has two horns, like (ὅμοιον 
instead of ὅμοια) a lamb (so that, then, the horns also were like the horns of 
the lamb).” Concerning the form of this beast, nothing further is expressed 
than that it had two horns like the horns of a lamb. The interpretation of 
this figure must be mistaken, if, notwithstanding the omission of the art. 
before ἀρνίῳ, a contrast is immediately found to the Lamb with seven horns,}° 
and it is then declared that the beast which has only two horns is far infe- 
rior in fulness of strength to that of the Lamb, although the similarity to 
Christ consists in that the wisdom also of this world is hidden," or that the 
beast especially resembles the Lamb of God in the manner in which he exer- 
cises its dominion over the Church.!? But while it is very difficult to regard 
the beast with his two horns of a lamb as in contrast with the Lamb with 
seven horns, a comparison with the beast out of the sea is readily made. This 
had ten horns, which must be further described in another respect; but the 
beast out of the earth has two horns, whose meaning lies in what is further 
said concerning them: they resemble the horns of a lamb, —even in their 
number they were no more than those of a lamb. The number has, there- 
fore, in itself no special reference, — possibly in the same way as the ten 
horns (ver. 1),18— but only expresses, like the entire form of the horns, the 
resemblance to a lamb in the appearance of the beast, and designates the pe- 
culiarity of pseudo-prophetism, which, in Matt. vii. 15,14 is symbolized in a 
somewhat different way. — καὶ ἐλάλει ὡς δράκων. The precise reference to the 
dragon, in whose service also this second beast stands, forbids the omission 


1 Cf. Victorin., Andr., Hammond, Grot., 
Eichh., Ewald, De Wette; also Hengstenb. 


11 Hengstenb. 
12 Ebrard; who, after the manner of Vitr., 


2 Coccej., Calov., Vitr., ete. 

8 Bengel, in his way, remarks: The earth 
is here also Asia, ‘‘ to which already for a Jong 
time a greater part of the papal views... 
referred.” 

* See on that passage. 

5 Cf. John viii. 32. 

ὁ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου TOUTOY, 

7 Cf. ver. 1, ἐκ. τ. θαλ. 

8 Cf., immediately afterwards, ver. 12. 

9 As ix. 10. 
aig 6. 


etc., finds a fulfilment of the prophecy con. 
cerning the second beast, ‘‘in the papacy, with 
respect to its spiritual power.” Vitr. inter- 
prets the two horus as referring more defi- 
nitely to the two monastic orders. 

5 Against Wetst., who refers to Titus and 
Domitian; against Hammond, who explains: 
The twofold power of priests, viz., that of 
miracles and of prophecy. 

14 Cf. Beda, Andr., Ewald. 

15 Victorin.: ‘*He spoke, full of the malice 
of the devil.”” Andr., etc. Cf. also Hengst- 


380 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


of the art.; besides, no speaking of the dragon is at all mentioned by xii. 1. 
The ὡς δράκων 1 designates the crafty speech of the tempter.?_ An allusion, 
however, to the relation to the dragon — which also is not denied by Ewald, 
Ziill., etc. — lies in the fact that he is described not as ὡς ὄφις, but as ὡς dp 8 

Ver. 12. The second beast is expressly designated as standing in the 
relation of servitude to the first: the entire ἐξουσία given, he puts in opera- 
tion, and that, too, ἐνωπίον αὐτοῦ, ie., beneath the eyes of the first beast, as 
its lord. — rovei —iva προσκυνήσουσι. Cf. 111. 9. -- οὐ ἐθεραπ., «7.4. This was 
indicated already (ver. 4) as the cause of the astonishing adoration. 

Vv. 13, 14. σημεῖα μεγάλαι As, according to Matt. xxiv. 24, they belong 
to the seductive activity (ver. 14) of the false prophet.5 — iva καὶ mip ποιῇ κατα- 
βαίνειν ἐκ τ. ovp. With Beng., Hengstenb. recognizes here a significant ex- 
ample of the use of the iva ® in the sense of ὥστε peculiar to the Apostle John. 
_ But, improperly: the use of iva, which in this passage, in fact, explains the 
conception of the μεγάλα, is very strongly distinguished from the style of 
the Apostle John, because in the latter® the ideal statement of the purpose 
is actually included, while here the writer of the Apoc., in a mode widely 
different from the elegance of the apostle, describes something that is simply 
a matter of fact. In such case, the apostle infallibly writes ὥστε ϑ or ὅτι. 19 ---- 
The words iva καὶ πῦρ, x.7.A., Should not be regarded as proving that the false 
prophet intends to mimic Pentecost, or wishes to represent himself as a 
second Solomon. We are much more apt to think of an allusion to the 
miracles of Elijah,!* and thus to regard this false prophet as a forerunner 
of antichrist, in a way similar to that according to which the true Christ 
had an Elias 18. as a forerunner. But the analogy dare not be determined 
more specifically than the context itself suggests. It is not the antichrist 
in the sense of the Apostle John, but the dragon that in the Apoc. stands 
opposed to Christ,!5 and it is not the forerunner, but the accomplice, of the 
dragon, that is the other beast whose ungodly and antichristian nature 
expresses itself in the fact that in virtue of his demoniacal power he can 
perform miracles, which appear to be counterparts of the miracles of the . 
true prophets. —xai maava. The miracles are an important auxiliary 16 of 
the seduction.!’ — λέγων, without construction, as xi. 1. -- ποιῆσαι εἰκόνα τῷ 
θηρίῳ, κιτΔ. The historical foundation of this description is indicated already 
in the Introduction.!® All images of deified emperors must have appeared to 
the Christian conscience as images of the beast, the more certainly as all 


enb.: ‘* As a dragon,” in fact, as well as ‘‘as 7 Cf. Winer, p. 430. 
the dragon.”’ 8 Cf., e.g., 1 John iii. 1, with my note, vol. 
1 Cf. Gen. iii. 1 sqq.; Ewald, De Wette. ii., p. 49. 
2 Cf. ver. 14, πλανᾷ, with Gen. iii. 13. 9 John iii. 16. ; 
3 Cf. xii. 9. 10 1 John iv. 9. 11 Beda. 
4 Cf. ver. 14, viii. 2; 1 Kings x. 8; Num. 12 2 Chron. vii. 1. C.a Lap. 
iii.6. De Wette, Hengstenb. 13 Cf. xi. 3 sqq. 
5 Victorin.: ‘‘ These things the Magi do also 14 Cf. Introduction, p. 65. 
to-day through fallen angels.” 15 xii. 3. 8qq., xiii. 1 sqq. 
6 The variation καὶ mip iva ex τ. οὐρ. KaTa- 16 διὰ τ. o., because of the miracles. Cf. xii. 
βαίνῃ (Griesb., De Wette) would contain a 11. 
turn similar to that of ver. 12, viz., και (sc. 17 Matt. xxiv. 24: ὥστε πλανήσαι. 


ποιεῖ) πῦρ, K.T.A, 18 p. 51 Βα. 


CHAP. XIII. 15-17. 381 
those individual emperors were possessors of the same antichristian secular 
power. Hence the addition ὃ ἔχει τ. πλ., «7.4.1 is also again in place here; 
the statues of Augustus and Caligula, erected to them as gods, were also 
represented by the beast which received its wound only with Nero’s death. 
Ver. 15. To the second beast, it was further given (ἐδόθη, cf. ver. 7): 
δοῦναι πνεῦμα τῇ εἰκόνι τοῦ θηρίου, i.e., to give that image of the beast a demoni- 
acal πνεῦμα ζωῆς,2 and that, too, with the intention (iva καὶ Aad.) that this 
might thereby speak, and also by this sign of life manifest his usurped 
divine glory —which must be adored (ver. 15). Ver. 15a must not be 
understood of a speaking of the spirit of heathen idols;* but this feature 
of the description contains a suggestion of what has been reported concern- 
ing divine images actually speaking ;* and John appears ® to presuppose the 
reality of such demoniacal miracles. — Significant, besides, is the statement 
that the idol of the first beast had not the power to speak of itself, nor with 
the rough foree with which the beast ruled the world, but that the intel- 
lectual power of the lying wisdom of the world must give that beast living 
speech. ‘The false prophet with his πλανᾶν belongs thereto, if that beast is 
to find worship. — Incorrect is the special reference in Victorin.: “ He will 
cause a golden image to antichrist to be placed in the temple at Jerusalem, and 
the vanishing angel to enter, and to give thence voices and decisions.” — 
k. Toon iva—dmoxravooot. On the construction, cf. ver. 12. On the his- 
torical illustration of this testimony, as in the letter of Pliny to Trajan.® 
Vv. 16,17. καὶ ποιεῖ πάντας --- ἵνα δῶσιν αὐτοῖς yap. —xal iva μή tic, x.7.A. The 
first iva, just as ver. 12; the second iva (ver. 17) has a different relation to 
the ποιεῖ, which is to be regarded as repeated before it, in so far as here an 
immediate determination of the object is lacking. — John describes how the 
entire number of worshippers of the beast,’ who recognize one another by a 
mark which certifies that they belong to the beast, hinder the intercourse, 
required even in business with respect to their daily life, of saints who 
have not received that mark of the beast. — δῶσιν αὐτοῖς χάραγμα. Deceived 
by the second beast unto the worship of the first beast (ver. 14), the dwellers 
on the earth put a mark upon themselves; they receive it willingly. — ἐπὶ 
τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς ἢ ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον αὑτῶν. Ziill. and Hengstenb. unjustly 
resist the acknowledgment ϑ that the idea contains an allusion to the heathen 
custom of branding slaves and soldiers, and thus of designating that they 


1 Cf. ver. 12. On the x. ἔζησεν, cf. ii. 8. On 
the neut. o ἔχ.» see Critical Notes. 

ΞΟ ΣΙ, 

3 Against Hengstenb., who remarks how 
the heathen in his idol objectified his own 
views, and that, too, with a vividness which 
was attested by the assertions of actual speech 
on the part of those images. 

4 Cf. Grot., Ew. ii., who also recalls the 
popular deception of speaking statues of Mary. 

5 Cf. also ver. 13. 

6 L. X., ep. 97: ‘‘ When they invoked the 
gods, and with wine and frankincense made 
supplication to your image, which, for that 


purpose, I had commanded to be brought to- 
gether with the statues of the deities, none of 
which things, as is said, those who are really 
Christians can be forced to do.’’ Those who 
remain faithful must die: ‘‘ Threatening also 
to punish them with death. Such as persisted, 
I ordered them to be led away.’ Cf., concern- 
ing the Neronian persecution, Tacit., Ann., 
xv 44. ; 

7 The specifications τ. μικροὺς k. τ. MEY., 
x.7.A., exhaust in a perceptible way the idea of 
the πάντας. Cf. vi. 15, xi. 18, xix. 18. 

8 Cf. xiv. 9, 11, xvi. 2, xix. 20, xx. 4. 

9 Grot., Ebrard, etc. 


382 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


belong to the same master. It is just concerning this that the treatment 
refers, and not with respect to a counterpart of Deut. vi. 8; for the χάραγμα 
of the worshippers of the beast is to mark them as such, and to render them 
distinguishable as of the same nature, but in itself by no means contains an 
admonition of a service of the beast to which they are bound. The remi- 
niscence of the Gentile custom is the more natural here, as the worshippers 
of the beast are partners in the Gentile-Roman Empire. The χάραγμα, how- 
ever, is not the bringing together by a “confession,” + but it is the definite 
external mark indicated in both its forms in ver. 17, which is attached either 
to the forehead or the right hand, and thus in places most readily presented to 
the eyes; for, since it is intended only for visibility, whether it be attached 
to the one or the other place is a matter of indifference. Inappropriately, 
Hengstenb. says: “The forehead is the most suitable place for the confes- 
sion” (? Rom. x. 10), and the right hand comes into consideration “as the 
instrument for action.” But just because the parallel assertion én? τ. μέτωπον 
air. does not allow any other reference than to the convenient visibility of the — 
mark, the ἐπὶ τ. χεῖρ. ait. τ. de€. also cannot have any deeper reference. ‘The 
right hand is mentioned because this must manifest itself especially in daily 
use. — The nature of the signature contained by the χάραγμα is definitely 
expressed in ver. 17: τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θηρίου, ἢ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὄνόματος αὐτοῦ, 1.€., 
either the express name by which the beast is known, and. therefore written 
in letters, or the number which gives the numerical value of the letters con- 
tained in the name.?- In every respect perversely, Coccejus says that the 
χάραγμα is the law, the ὄνομα the Catholic Church, and the ἀριθμ. unwritten 
tradition. 

Ver. 18. As John wants to designate the χάραγμα definitely, and that, 
too, in the form of the ἀριθμὸς τοῦ ὀνόματος of the beast (ver. 17), he mentions 
first of all, that wisdom and understanding are required for the comprehen- 
sion of this mysterious mark. The formula ade ἡ cog. ἐστιν receives its pe- 
culiar meaning‘ through the context, especially through the express demand 
ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω, «7.A. A reckoning (ψηφισάτω) is properly required, 
because the subject has reference to a number, and the value of its letters; 
yet the invitation to solve the puzzle intelligibly is supported by the explicit 
remark that the solution can actually be found, because the number is 
meant in the ordinary way: ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν. ‘These words do not 
declare that the number describes the name of any particular human person,® 
—in order to express which, John would have had to attach a τινὸς, or, after 
his way,’ a ἑνὸς, to avp., — but, as also the γὰρ, and the omission of the art. 
before ἀριθμ. indicate, that the ἀριθμὸς τοῦ θηρίου express the ὄνομα τοῦ θηρίου in a 
human way, and therefore according to the value of the letters current with 


1 Against Hengstenb., who yet himself re- p. 75. Andr.: ὁ χρόνος ἀποκαλύψει. Hofmann, 
marks that the confession has an impulse for who even assumes that John himself did not 


an external sign. know the name signified by the number; 
2 Cf., on the other hand, vii. 3. Luthardt, ete. Cf. Intro., p. 42. 
3 Cf. De Wette, etc. 6 Beda, Grot., Ew.i., Ziill., Hofm. (Schrift- 


4 Cf. ver. 10. bew., ii. 637), Volkm., Klief., etc. 
5 Against lrenzus, Z. V., 6. 30. Cf. Intro., 7 viii. 18. 


CHAP. XIII. 18. 883 


every one. The key to the mystery of the numerical name is, therefore, 
readily found; but wisdom and understanding are necessary in order to use 
this key properly. That this is not so easy, the history of the exposition 
shows, as it! gives the report of hundreds of attempts to solve the puzzle, 
which failed just because it was not understood, on the part of the large 
number of men which may contain the names of thousands, how to decipher 
the only correct name. — With the statement of this riddle John concludes 
the description of the beast, which thus reaches the most significant climax: 
καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτοῦ χες. The αὐτοὺ belongs to the conception τοῦ éypiov,” just as 
ψηφ. τ. ἀριθμὸν τ. θηρ. Was expressed, yet in the sense that the ἀριθμ. τοῦ θηρίου is 
meant as the ἀριθμ. τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ θηρ., ver. 17. — Without all doubt the 
number to be indicated means ys’, i.e., 666; for what Irenaeus? reports of 
those who received the number ys’, 616, is the less applicable for causing 
any doubt with respect to the certainty of the received reading és’, as 
Jrenaeus himself decidedly advocates the latter reading by asserting for it 
the authority of all good and ancient MSS., and an express tradition which 
he derived from the author of the Apoc. himself. —JIn order to find the 
interpretation of the enigmatical number commended by John to Christian 
understanding, the indications afforded by the nearer and more remote con- 
text are certainly to be observed, which show the entire class of attempts at 
interpretation to be impossible, and urge the correct interpretation : — | 

(1) All expositors enter into an erroneous course who, in spite of the 
declaration of the text, understand the number not as τὸν ἀριθμὸν tod ὀνόματος 
tov θηρίου; i.e., who have held it as any thing else than a definite name ex- 
pressed in numbers. Therefore, not only is such play-work to be rejected 
of itself, as that of Zeger 4 and of Coccejus,® but also all Apocalyptic chro- 
nology based upon the number 666. With what confidence this was formerly 
held, is to be seen from the fact that in the Wittenberg Bible of the year 
1661, the note (Luther’s gloss) is given: “It is 666 years: so long does the 
worldly papacy stand.” The master in the sphere of Apocalyptic arithmetic 
— in which men even like Isaac Newton have erred ®—was Bengel, whose 
piety remains worthy of respect because it believed that even in the spaces 


1 Cf. Wolf, Curae, on this passage; Hein- 
richs, Hxcursus iv., De antichristo, et impri- 
mis monogrammate illo, cap xiii. 18, nume- 
rum exprimente, vol. ii. p. 235. Ziillig, Hxcurs. 
ii., 232. 

2 This reference is not, as Klief. says, 
*‘an evasion,’ but a philological necessity, 
which, of course, cannot be acknowledged, if, 
upon the basis of ver. 18 (ap. y. av@p.), it be 
asserted (Klief.) that the beast is a man, since 
the number of the beast designates a man. 
But in truth, the av@p. is only a qualitative 
designation of the ἀριθμὸς, so that it is directly 
impossible to refer the αὐτοῦ in the closing 
words to av@p. It can refer only to the chief 
conception which is designated by repetition 
in ver. 17 (τ. ap. τ. ov. αὐτοῦ) and ver. 18 (τ. 
ap. Tov Onpiov). 


3 L. V.,¢. 30: “I do not know how it is 
that some have erred, following the ordinary 
mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle 
number in the name, deducting fifty numbers, 
wishing that only one be instead of six dec- 
ades. This 1 think was the fault of the copy- 
ists,’’ etc. 

4 Viz., that the name Legion, Luke viii. 30, 
is meant, viz., six thousand six hundred and 
sixty-six, but after a withdrawal of six thou- 
sand caused by Christ’s victory. 

5 Viz., that the Catholic additions to apos- 
tolic doctrine are meant, the jus canonicum, 
espedially the liber sextus, since the number 
six remains if six hundred and sixty-six be 
divided by twelve. 

6 Cf. Liicke, p. 1036. 


384 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


of time which are regarded as revealed in the Apoc., the holy ways of God 
are to be discerned, although not only is the excessive curiosity which 
muddled that piety reproved by the wording and spirit of Acts i. 7, 
Matt. xxiv. 36,1 but also the entire theory, as it is built by Bengel upon 
this text, is deprived of a foundation and basis by making the text itself 
speak of nothing less than of 666 years. Bengel’s system of Apocalyptic 
chronology depends essentially upon the fact, that, in order to gain first an 
arithmetical proportion upon which to work, he combines the 666 years, as 
ordinary years, with the 3} times or 42 “ prophetical months,” 2 that thereby 
he may attain the various chronological determinations,’ which he then 
applies to the history of the popes. 

(2) Against the method, given in the text, for finding the name of the 
beast from the number 666, in such a way that the numerical value of 
the letters forming the concealed name gives that sum, Vitringa and Heng- 
stenb. object, with their peculiar interpretation, rejected already by Vitr. 
and Coccejus. Because, in Ezra ii. 13, a head of a family, Adonikam, with 
666 sons, is mentioned, the Apoc. number is therefore regarded as referring 
to this name, DP 2I8 (the Lord sets up), and thus, in the sense of ver. 4,4 the 
antichristian arrogance of the beast deifying itself is indicated. Besides, 
Hengstenb. finds even in the number 666 itself the sign of that which is 
contrary to God, because, “as the swollen six,” it always remains a world- 
number, aud can never be reduced to the godly number seven.> But even 
apart from this last mode of trifling, and without considering that it yields 
a Hebrew name,—while only a Greek name is to be expected, —a mere 
play-work would be found therein, entirely spiritless, and not in harmony 
with the holy earnestness of John, if, without all inner reference to the sup- 
posed name, it would be referred to the number of children of Adonikam. 
Yet the name Adonikam could be meant in the assumed sense if that head 
of a family had had 777 sons. 

(3) We have not only in the wording of vv. 17, 18, the clear direction for 
seeking a name in the enigmatical number; but the Apoc. as a whole, and 
the context of ch. xiii. especially, compel us to reckon that name from no 
other than the Greck alphabet. A scientific expositor at the present day 
no longer attempts to introduce the Latin alphabet® or those of modern 
languages.”? It is only either the Greek or the Hebrew alphabet that can 


1In a remarkable way, Bengel (ΚΖ ΚΙ. 
Offenb., p. 1090) attempts to prove that Acts i. 
7 does not testify against his method of ** Apoc- 
alyptic chronology.” The Lord, he says, gave 
his apostles ‘‘no pure repulse,’’ but only in- 
formed them that the knowledge of the day 
and hour did not belong to the apostolic office. 
᾿ 2 xii. 6, 14. 

3 6665/9, 7777/4 years. 

4 2 Thess. ii. 4. 

5 Cf. C. a Lap. and Lnthardt, who refer the 
antichristian number 666 as in antithesis to 
the number 888 with which in the Sibyll. 
Orac., L. I., p. 176, ed. Serv. Gall., the name 
Ἰησοῦς is described; Herd., etc., mention that 


the serpentine form é occurs between the let- 
ters xs, i.e., the monogram of the name of 
Christ. 

6 Cf. Bossuet’s interpretation: DIoCLes 
aVgVstVs = Diocles or Diocletian Augustus, 
by reckoning only one part of the letters. 
Similar artificial expedients in Vieg. and the 
Catholics, who derived the names Martin 
Luther, John Calvin, Beza antitheos, and the 
like, reckoning sometimes in German, and 
sometimes in Greek and Hebrew; while, on 
the contrary, the old Protestants conjectured 
the names of Popes, Jesuits, etc. 

7 Cf. Gerken, with his numerous interpre- 
tations with respect to the history of Napoleon. 


CHAP. XIII. 18. 385 


enter into consideration. The application of the latter is apparently urged 
by the O. T. character of the Apoc.! Ziillig thus finds the name Balaam in 
the designation of Josh. xiii. 33, which,” however, has nothing to do with the 
θηρίον of whose name it treats. Such interpretations would suit better, as 
that invented by Ewald for the (false) number 616, Yop on, i.e., Caesar at 
Rome, or that received by Hilgenf., Renan, etc. ,8 ally) ΤΣ if the presump- 
tion that Nero were to be identified with the beast were correct,® and if the 
introduction of the Hebrew alphabet were not arbitrary. Irenaeus, Primas, 
Victorin., Beda, Andr., Areth., Wetst., Grot., Calov., Eichh., Ew. i., De 
Wette, Stern, Rinck, Liicke, Bleek, etc., are correct in their attempt to find 
the number indicated by the name in the Greek alphabet; for although the 
Apoc., in its entire mode of presentation and in its style, shows a strongly 
impressed O. T. type, yet it is intended for the Greek-speaking reader, and, 
therefore, takes the formula A and 2° from the Greek alphabet, as also, in 
its references to O. T. passages, it is not altogether independent of the ver- 
sion of the LXX.7 But of the Greek interpretations that have been at- 
tempted, most miscarry, because they are either in form intolerable, or 
without meaning and definite reference. Here belong the solutions εὐάνθας, 
ἄντεμος,δ ἀρνοῦμε, reirav,) ὁ νικητής,}1} ἀντίδοκος,13 Οὔλπιος,18 λαμπέτης, κακὸς ddnyoc, 
ἄμνος ἄδικος, etc.1# Ingenious is the solution commended by Marcker.> He 
reckons, according to the Greek alphabet, the numerical value of the initials 
of the names of the emperors, from Octavianus to the tenth following, Ves- 
pasian, inclusive of the three emperors of the interregnum, — Galba, Otho, 
and Vitellius,—by reckoning the numerical sign é as the tenth, and so 
obtaining the letters ο΄, τ΄, γ΄, κ', v, γ΄, ο΄, ο΄, ο΄, é, which, according to their 
numerical value, give correctly 666, and besides can be combined in the 
name of the beast, ὀγκότογιον, so that the result is an indication of the vast- 
ness and pride (ὄγκος), and of the peculiar garment (toga) in the Roman 
Empire. This solution is a flagrant act of trifling, to which, besides, a 
counterpart is offered. It is false, therefore, already, because nothing justi- 
fies us in taking the names of the ten emperors as a basis, among which the 
last is figured only as a numerical sign. The combined name of the beast 
expresses little.— Kienlen, resorting to the Hebrew alphabet, derives the 
name of Domitian. — Kliefoth says that no name whatever is mentioned, but 
only the antichristian character of the beast, which, in every gradation of 
the world-power indicated by the number six, does not, nevertheless, reach 
the number seven which symbolizes the divine. —TIrenaeus already was 
acquainted with that solution of the puzzle, which alone corresponds 


1 Cf. Intro., p. 63. 9 Interpreted ‘‘denying.” Both these in- 
2 Only that Ziill., in order to conform to the terpretations rejected already by Beda. 
number 666, must put ODp instead of the 10 Jrenaeus, Beda, Wetst., found therein an 
DDIpa. allusion to the Emperor Titus. 11 Stern. 
8 Cf. De Wette. 12 Rinck, who has to reckon the smooth 
4 It ought to be 2" 3, i.e., Nero Cesar. breathing as 1, in order to avoid the result 665. 
5 Cf., on the other hand, on ver. 3. 13 Interpreted “ U/pius Trajan,” which must 
6 i. 8, xxii. 13. reckon as instead of a. 
7 Cf. xii. 5. 14 Cf., already, Andr. 


8 Interpreted as ‘‘ contrary to honor.” 16 Stud. u. Krit., 1868, p. 699. 


386 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


to all demands, — Aareivoc, i.e., according to the value of the letters: 
30+ 1+ 300+ 5+ 10 + 50 + 70 + 200 = 666. So Calov., Eichh., Ew. i., 
De Wette, Ebrard, etc. Irenaeus, indeed, preferred the name Τεῖταν, yet 
said: “But the name Aareivoc also has the number 666, and it is very prob- 
able, since the last kingdom has this name. For the Latins are they who 
now rule.” Against this interpretation it dare not be objected, that the 
usual form of the name is Λατῖνος; for although this is never found in 
analogous forms, like Σαβεῖνος, Παπείρος, etc., the very nature of the case has 
determined such a departure from what is usual, for the sake of the riddle. 
Yet, e.g., in the sibylline books,! the name χρῖστος is changed into χρεῖστος, 
because in the acrostic description of the words ᾿Ιησοῦς χρῖστος, θεοῦ vioc, k.T.A., 
not 1, but only an εἰ, can be introduced. But if the name of the beast be 
Λατεῖνος, there is conveyed by this numerical name the most definite designa- 
tion of the beast as the Roman Empire, not of any individual emperor, and 
the exposition of ch. xiii. 1 sqq., is expressly confirmed. [See Note 
LXXIV., p. 388.] 


NoTEsS BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LXX. Ver. 1sqq. θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον, x... 


On this crux interpretum, we will attempt only to summarize the results of 
the thoughtful and sober discussion of Gebhardt (‘‘ The Doctrine of the Apoca- 
lypse,’”’ E. T., pp. 219-230), who constantly refers to, and often dissents from, 
Diisterdieck: There can be no doubt that the beast stands in the closest rela- 
tion of nature to the dragon (cf. xiii. 1, xvii. 3, 7, with xii. 3), and that the lat- 
ter is, in the eye of the seer, the antigod, and the former the antichrist. But 
this antichrist is not a single person; for xiii. 1, 2, shows that the seer had in 
mind Dan. vii. 2-7. The beast is accordingly not a person, but an empire, and 
that, too, the latest and most extreme, reproducing in itself all earlier phases of 
the world’s enmity to God. Yet as the individual forms of world-power appear 
to the seer to culminate in an empire which he calls ‘‘the beast,’’ so he sees 
again the particular stages of the development of this empire, the individual 
rulers of the same culminate in one prince, whom he also describes as “‘ the 
beast’ (xvii. 10, 11); as the leopard, the bear, and the lion are contained in 
the beast, so are the seven heads of the beast contained in the one head. As he 
sees in an individual king the nature of a definite empire, uniting in itself all 
earlier empires, personified, so also he sees unfolded in this empire the nature 
of that individual king. This empire could not have been any other than the 
one of John’s own times, the Roman Empire. [Farrar: ‘‘ The Roman emperor 
could say with truth, ‘ L’état c’est moi.’”’] The king must be Nero, and not 
Domitian, as Diisterdieck argues; ‘‘ the one who is’’ of xvii. 10 being Galba, 
and not, as Diisterdieck holds, Vespasian. Diisterdieck’s historical application 
of the rebellio trium principum, the incertum et quasi vagum, and the founda- 
tion of a new dynasty by Vespasian, is also charged as being seriously at fault. . 
On the details of the description, the sea is regarded as ‘‘ the department of 
earthly movement and earthly occurrences, in distinction from the earth, as the 


1 L. VIIL., p. 723, ed. Serv. Gall. 


NOTES. 387 


department of earthly being and feeling,” i.e., the Roman Empire, “arises out 
of secular history;’’ ‘‘the names of blasphemy,’ the titles by which Roman 
emperors appropriated to themselves divine honors, ete. The Nero-legend is 
rejected in the form that refers to his withdrawal and abode among the Parthi- 
ans, ‘‘ but in the eye of the seer, Nero lived, if we may call that a life, in the 
abyss; he went alive down to hell, and from hell would one day return.’’ Α1- 
ford argues against any reference to an emperor, and conceives of the whole 
representation as signifying the Roman Empire personified; ‘‘ the wounding of 
the head to death”’ (ver. 3) being interpreted of the downfall of the pagan, and 
‘the healing of the wound,” of the establishment of the Christian Empire. 


LXXI. Ver. 4. Τίς ὅμοιος τῷ θηρίῳ. 


Gebhardt: ‘‘ The seer observes what an imposing, overpowering, transport- 
ting impression the Roman Empire exercises upon men; how the world is aston- 
ished at it; that it is amazed by,its greatness, power, and glory, and does 
homage to it; how the world worships the dragon, because he has given power 
to the beast, — that is, not consciously worshipping the devil, but perceiving, in 
imperial power, and in its individual possessors, supposed manifestations of the 
divine, it really gives divine honors to the devil.’? Carpenter: ‘‘ The spirit of 
the wild beast is adored wherever worldliness prevails. There is nothing so 
successful as success, and the homage of men is more often paid to power than 
to principle. ‘Can you not hear the words coming across the centuries from 
the lips of two Roman youths, talking with each other as they lounge about the 
Forum ?’ (Maurice.) Can we not hear the echo of the words in the Champs 
Elysées, in Piccadilly, in the Broadway, or Unter den Linden, from the lips of 
young men who have taken fashion, rank, wealth, world-power in any shape, 
as their god ?”’ 


LXXII. Ver. 8. ἀπὸ κατβαολῆς κόσμου. 


In favor of the translation in our A. V., is the distance of this clause from 
the γέγραπται. 1 Pet. i. 19, 20, John xvii. 24, are sometimes cited as supporting 
**slain from the foundation;”’ but the shade of meaning there expressed is dif- 
ferent. Rev. xvii. 8 seems to be decisive in favor of the construction advocated 
by Dusterdieck; and it has, on the basis of this passage, been adopted by the 
American section of the committee on the R. V. 


LXXIII. Ver. 11 sqq. ἄλλο θηρίον. 


In harmony with Diisterdieck, Gebhardt: ‘‘ Heathen witchcraft and sooth- 
saying; the heathen religion as divination and magic according to its demoniacal 
origin and background, and its demoniacal influence on the mind.’’ Ver. 12: 
‘* The idolatrous homage by which the empire was consecrated and strengthened, 
it owed to the demoniacal influence of its religion upon the mind.”’ Ver. 13: 
“Τὴ its approaching climax of development, it will work wonders which will 
compare in appearance with the greatest miracles of the true prophets; for 
example, with those of an Elias.”? Ver. 14: ‘“‘If the heathen religion, with its 
demoniacal power, had already deluded the world, much more will it be so in 
the expected completion of that power; and as already it consecrated images to 


388 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


the Caesars for divine homage, as to gods, so with the appearance of the per- 
sonal antichrist, it will fully bring the world to set him up as God, and to render 
him divine honors.’’ Ver. 15: ‘‘ The seer knew, and did not doubt, what was 
said among the heathen about speaking images; and he expected, therefore, that 
heathen sorcery would succeed in giving life, the spirit of life (cf. xi. 11), to 
the image of the beast, so that it would speak, and thus be fully manifested to the 
world in its usurped divinity. And, indeed, in his time it had already happened 
that Christians were put to death because they refused to pay divine honors to 
the emperor; so, naturally, would it be in the future, as John foresaw, that 
refusal to worship the speaking image, as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 
ii. 6), would end in death.” Vv. 16, 17: ‘* The Christians were already vari- 
ously and seriously hindered in business, because in the Roman Empire the 
heathen religion penetrated and governed all civil relations. Indeed, in this re- 
spect, they were under a ban. There needed only one step more. The worship- 
pers of the beast would willingly place the name, or number of the name, of the 
beast upon their right hands, or upon their foreheads, or in the most conspicu- 
ous places; and those who would not consent to this, Christians included, would 
be able neither to buy nor sell; they would be shut out from intercourse, banned, 
marked, and robbed of the vital air in civil and social life.”’ 


LXXIV. Ver. 18. ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα Ef, " 


Luthardt: ‘‘ This number was transmitted also orally from the fathers, but 
notits meaning; this is a matter of the future, and all interpretations attempted 
are arbitrary. The best is still the ancient one: ‘The Latin,’ i.e., the antichrist, 
isthe ruler of the Roman Empire. But the number is intended to designate the 
-name of a person.”? Alford (Prolegomena): ‘‘Even while I print my note in 
favor of the Λατεινός of Irenaeus, I feel almost disposed to withdraw it. It is, 
beyond question, the best solution that has been given; but that it is not the 
solution, I have a persuasion amounting to certainty. It must be considered 
merely as worthy to emerge from the thousand and one failures strewed up and 
down in our books, and to be kept in sight till the challenge ὧδε 7 ougia ἐστίν is 
satisfactorily redeemed.”? Gebhardt suggests that both Λατεινός and Cesar Nero 
in Hebrew letters are correct. Farrar (Early Days of Christianity, pp. 468-474) 
argues with much learning and great ingenuity for the latter interpretation. 


CHAP. XIV. 389 


CHAPTER XIV. 


Ver. 1. ἑστὸς. So A, Ὁ, &, al., Erasm., 1, 3, 4,5. Ald., al., Lach., Tisch. 
1859 and IX. [W. and H.]. Elz.: ἑστηκός, emendation. The ἑστώς (B., Beng., 
Tisch. 1854) testifies in favor of the correct reading, since only the masc. form 
expresses the reference to Christ. --- ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ before ὄνομα τ. πατρ. is 
omitted in the Rec., in opposition to almost all the witnesses. — Ver. 3. Before 
φδὴν xav,, A, C, Vulg., Lach. [W. and H.], have a ὡς, which is lacking in B, x, 
al., Verss., Elz., Tisch., and may have been carried over from ver. 2. — Ver. 5. 
After the ἄμωμοι, the yap (B, &, Copt., Syr., Orig., Elz., Tisch.) is possibly to 
be deleted (A, Ὁ, 12, Vulg., Lach. [W. and H.]); cf. ver. 4: map@. yap εἰς. In- 
correct is the addition at the close in the Rec., ἐνώπιον tod θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ. --- 
Ver. 6. ἐπὶ τοὺς καθημένους. So Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.], because the ἐπὶ, which 
stands also directly before πᾶν ἔθνος, is supported by A, Ὁ, &, al. (it is lacking in 
B, Elz., Beng.), while the Rec. τ. κατοικοῦντας (A, Lach., small ed.) gives only 
the more usual expression (xiii. 8, 12, 14) against B, Ὁ, 8, al. — Ver. 8. Instead 
of ὅτι (Elz.), read 7 with A, C, Lach., Tisch. Both are lacking in Beng. — Ver. 
13. ἀναπαήσονται. So A, C, 8, Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The form ἀναπαύσων- 
ται (Elz., B: ἀναπαύσονται) is a modification. — τὰ δὲ épya. So Elz., Beng., Tisch., 
according to B, al., Andr., Areth. The well-attested reading τὰ γὰρ ἔργα (A, C, 
δὲ, al., Vulg., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]) is liable to suspicion as an 
attempt at interpretation. — Ver. 15. The σοι after ἦλθεν (Elz.) is incorrect 
(A, B, C, 8, Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).—Ver. 18. ὁ ἔχων. So 
Lach., Tisch., according to A, C. The article causing a difficulty is omitted 
already in B, κα (Elz., Beng., Griesb., Tisch. IX.) [bracketed in W. and H.]. — 
The plural ἤκμασαν ai σταφυλαὶ (Elz., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), is of 
course, easier than the sing. (Tisch., according to B), but is defended as ade- 
quate by A, C, &, al. — A, C, νὰ, advocate αὐτῆς (Elz., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and 
H.]), while B offers τῆς γῆς. --- Ver. 19. τὸν μέγαν. So A, B, C, Tisch., Lach. 
[W. and H.]. The Rec., τὴν μεγάλην (x), is purely an emendation. 


After the description of the secular power threatening believers (ch. xiii., 
cf. also xii. 12, 17) has shown how the proper originator of all the calamity, 
which has been prepared for believers, is no less than Satan himself, there 
now follows —in consolatory contrast to that terrible picture —an account 
which, with its two parts (vv. 1-5, vv. 6-20), serves essentially to give em- 
phatic force to the thoughts that obtruded themselves already in xiii. 9, 10, 
in the midst of the description of the antichristian enemies. This contrast 
between chs. xiv. and xiii. lies not only in the contents in itself, but is also 
expressly marked by the definite retrospective allusions to ch. xiii. (cf. 
especially ver. 8 sqq.).—In like manner, just as in ch. vii. 9 sqq., an in- 
spiriting prospect of the heavenly glory of believers abiding faithful in the 
great tribulation still impending. is afforded before this trouble itself is 


390 ᾿ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


stated, so also in the first part of ch. xiv. (vv. 1-5), a scene is represented 
which in a multitude of departed believers (ver. 1, one hundred and forty- 
four thousand, ver. 4, drapy7), who appear with the Lamb on Mount Zion, 
and are described as such as have kept their earthly life free from all de- 
filement of the world, manifests the glorious rewards of the victors.1— 
In another way the second vision (ver. 6 sqq.) brings the incentive to 
patience ;* viz., by the declaration of the Divine judgment infallibly per- 
taining to the antichristian secular power. The latter account is presented 
with such elegance that the outline of the entire Apoc., at least seemingly 
forgotten, is stated again more definitely. The nearer we come to the final 
catastrophe, the more clearly is the analogy in the appearance of the vision 
to be known, as the end is organically developed from the beginning: the 
seven vials of wrath (xv. 1 sqq.) appear in the same relation to the trumpets 
(villi. 2-xi. 19) as the latter do to the seven seals (v. 1-viii. 1), so that from 
the standpoint to which xiv. 6-20 already leads, and which is again expressly 
adopted in xv. 1, the apparent chasm between ch. xi. and ch. xii. com- 
pletely vanishes. 

Ver. 1. καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδού. The formula? marks the unexpected, forcible 
contrast to the preceding vision.4— τὸ ἀρνίον. Since the Lamb appears as 
the leader of the glorified,® not only does the contrast between Christ and 
Satan, with his dragon-form, stand forth in startling relief; but the form of 
the Lamb also reminds us that the Lord himself has by his sufferings 
and death attained the victory,® therefore his people must follow him; and 
that the redemption of believers (ver. 4), and their glorification, depend 
upon the blood of the Lamb.7—ésréc. With the abbreviated form of the 
part.,® cf. the inf. ἑστάναι, 1 Cor. x. 12.9 -- ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος Σιών. The failure to 
acknowledge the proper significance of the entire vision is connected no 
less with the arbitrary presumption that Mount Zion is to be regarded in 
heaven,!° than with the allegorizing interpretation, according to which 
Mount Zion is regarded as the Christian Church.4 Vitringa unites the 
reference of the whole to the true Church,’ with the correct acknowledg- 
ment 18 that the locality represented in the vision is meant properly. Cf. 
similar local designations within the vision, which are to be understood 
with absolute literalness, vv. 6, 14, xiii. 1, 11, xii. 1, vii. 1. The holy 
place named, the home of the O. T.—and, therefore, also of the N. T.44— 
Church, is adapted like no other place for that which is displayed to the 
gazing John. With the Lamb there appear one hundred and forty-four 
thousand who have the name of the Lamb, and the name of his Father, 


ΤΟ ἢν ΤΟΙΣ 10 Grot., Eichh., Stern., Ziill., Ew., Hengst- 

2 Cf. ver. 12, where the admonition is ex- enb., Ebrard, etc. Especially does Ziillig ex- 
pressly made prominent. plain: ‘“*The highest mountain-like vault of 

3 Cf. ver. 14, vi. 2, 5, 8. the firmament, which corresponded to Mount 

4 Hengstenb. Zion, inasmuch as, according to the Israelitic 

5 Cf. vii. 17. idea, it lay directly beneath the same.” 

6 Cf. v. 5 sqq., iii. 21. 11 Beda, C. a Lap., Calov., etc. 

7 Cf. v. 9, vii. 14, xii. 11. 12 In yv. 1-5 it is stated: ‘‘ That in a false, 

8 Matt. xxiv. 15. there is a true Church” (cf. Laun.). 


9 Winer, p. 75. 13 De Wette. MOT) xi, 1,17. 


CHAP. XIV. 2, 3. 391 
written on their foreheads. These one hundred and forty-four thousand 
are, according to the usual conception,! identical with those mentioned in 
ch. vii. 4. The number is the same; the seal there mentioned on the fore- 
heads may be combined with the names of God which the followers of the 
Lamb have written on their foreheads; also the place, Mount Zion, appears 
to apply especially to glorified believers from Israel. But there are weighty 
reasons for the distinction of the one hundred and forty-four thousand in 
our text from those named in vii. 4.25 [See, for the contrary, Note LIII., 
p 256, on ch. vii. 4.] 1. If John had wished here to designate those 
already mentioned in vii. 4, he would have expressed this definitely by the 
article. Cf. similar retrospective allusions in ver. 1 (τὸ dpv.), ver. 3 (ἐν τοῦ 
θρ., τῶν τεσσ. ¢., τῶν πρεσβ.). This was the more necessary, because here a 
particular description of the one hundred and forty-four χιλιάδες follows 
(ἔχουσαι, «.7.4.), Which could lead to an identity with the sealed only in 
case it be conceived that the seal had as an inscription the twofold names 
here designated; a conception which in itself has no difficulty, but is remote 
therefrom, because the sign of the sea] has a designation and significance 
different from this sign of the name: there the fidelity, not to be affected by 
the impending trouble, is sealed, while here the name of God expresses the 
eternal and blessed belonging of believers to their heavenly Lord,’ in con- 
trast with those who have made themselves bondsmen of the beast. (Vv. 
9, 11, xiii. 16 sq.) 2. To this must be added the fact, which may be deci- 
sive, that the one hundred and forty-four thousand in our passage, which, 
according to ver. 3 sqq., do not appear at all as from Israel, can be identi- 
fied with those mentioned in vii. 4, only in case one of the two false concep- 
tions, with respect to ch. vii.,4 be sanctioned; viz., either. that the one 
hundred and forty-four thousand (vii. 4) be regarded identical with the 
innumerable multitude (vii. 9 sqq.), or this multitude be regarded as a 
part of the one hundred and forty-four thousand. But it is rather to be 
said that in this passage only the schematic number, which as a designation - 
of a mass suits mainly believers out of Israel (cf. vii. 4-8), is transferred to 
such as have completed their course, and designates not only the definite 
description, ver. 3 sqq., but especially also the antithesis lying in the entire 
context to the heathen worshippers of the beast, as those springing from the 
heathen.® This select band (cf. ver. 4) appears as such in the holy numer- 
ical sign of believers out of Israel; it is contained in the innumerable com- 
pany, viz., aS an ἀπαρχῆ. 

Vv. 2, 3. ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Cf. x. 4,8. Many of the expositors who have 
transferred Mount Zion, ver. 1, to heaven, have® ascribed the voice from 
heaven to the one hundred and forty-four thousand themselves. Ew. ii., 


1 Grot., Vitr., Beng., Eichh., Heinr., Ew., 
Ziill., De Wette, Rinck, Hengstenb., Ebrard, 


3 Of i11. 12: 
4 See on that verse. 


Gebhardt, Hilgenf., Kliefoth. 

2 Areth., Laun., Ο. ἃ Lap., Marck., Bleek, 
Beitr., p. 184 sqq.; Neander, History of the 
Planting and Training, 3d ed., II., p. 543; 
Volkm. Vitr., already, is vacillating: ‘‘ The 
same, or at least those of the same kind.” 


5 It is worthy of note, how decidedly this 
passage contradicts also the pretended anti- 
Pauline Jewish Christianity of the author of 
the Apocalypse. 

6 As C.a Lap., Vitr., Beng., Hengstenb. 


392 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


as in xii. 10 sqq., xix. 1 sqq., understands the voices as those of the martyrs, 
vii. 9 546. --- ὡς dwr. ὑδάτων πολλ. Cf. i 16. -- ὡς φων. βροντῆς wey. Cf. vi. 1. 
The strength of the heavenly voice does not prevent its sounding at the same 
time charmingly, like the melody of players on the harp: ὡς κιθαρῳδῶν, «.7.A. 
The év, which designates the instrument, is here still easier than in vi. 8. — 
ὠδὴν καινῆν. Cf. v. 9.. The conception καινήν has nothing to do with the 
ἀπαρχή,2 ver. 4; for the one hundred and forty-four thousand do not sing 
this song. In this passage, also, the relation of the καινῆν, as to how this 
song is to be called because of its contents, is to be understood from the 
connection. The general reference to the work of redemption is not suf- 
ficient ;? but the subject has reference to that which is displayed to the 
gazing prophet, through the vision presented to him, and therefore to 
the faithfulness of God and the Lamb, whereby believers, upon the ground 
of the redemption accomplished by Christ, are preserved amid all the entice- 
ments or persecutions, on the part of the antichristian secular power, and 
brought to victory and eternal glory.4 — ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου, «.7.A. There the 
song, according to its most inner relation, belongs, because it describes 
the blessed goal of God’s ways, whose attainment was of itself pledged by 
the significant glory of the heavenly scene, ch. iv., upon which the entire 
arrangement of God’s ways rests. — καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο μαθεῖν τ. ¢6., «7.4. The 
one hundred and forty-four thousand, however, could learn this new song, 
i.e., not merely understand,® but also appropriate it so as to afterwards sing 
10,56 because they alone have the experience of that which is celebrated in 
the song.? — οἱ ἠγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. On the thought, cf. 4, v. 9. The con- 
struction of the masc., with ai χιλιάδες, is according to the sense, as v. 13. 
Vv. 4,5. John describes the one hundred and forty-four thousand as a 
select number surpassing all other believers in moral perfection. The under- 
standing of this description depends principally upon the proper arrange- 
ment and framing of the individual expressions. At the beginning and at 
the close two special points stand (ver. 4: οὔτοι εἰσιν of μετὰ γυναικῶν οὐκ ἐμο- 
λύνθησαν ; ver. 5: καὶ ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν οὐχ εὑρέθη ψεῦδος); here, where the 
subject pertains to the past earthly life of those who have died, the aor. 
necessarily stands. In both cases the conclusion is by formule framed 
precisely in like manner (ver. 4: παρθένοι γάρ εἰσιν ; Ver. 5: ἄμωμοι yap εἰσιν); 
but here, where an advance is made from the definite actual preservation of 
the deceased, to their proper nature and permanent condition, the present 
necessarily occurs. Between the two double-membered sentences, in the 
beginning and at the close, there are besides two sentences, which are there- 
by exhibited as independent of one another and the beginning and closing 
sentences, in that they both commence with the special designation of the 
subject (οὗτοι), and that the first expresses something present (οὗτ. εἰσιν οἱ 
ἀκολ.), but the second something past, completed in the earthly life (οὗτ. ἢγο- 


1 Cf. v. 8. 5 Grot., who besides evades: ‘‘ Noone could 


2 Against Beng.: ‘A new song suits well understand the cause of such joy.” 
these first fruits.” 6 Ew., De Wette. 
3 De Wette. 7 Cf. ii. 17, also xix. 12. 


¢ Cf. Hengstenb. 


CHAP. XIV. 4, 5. 393 
ράσθησαν, cf. ver. 3). Hofmann? is the first expositor who keeps in view the 
disposition of vv. 4,5; but he misjudges it by regarding the παρθένοι γάρ εἰσιν 
as immediately attracted to the succeeding words. The disposition attempted 
now also by Ew. ii., whereby three members appear (1. οὐτοί εἰσ., «.7.A.; 2. ovr. 
εἰσ., K.T.A.3 8. καὶ ἐν τ. στόμ., x.7.4.), 185. in violation of the context. — οἱ μετὰ 
γυναικὼν οὐκ ἐμολύνθησαν. According to Lev. xv. 18, the sexual union in itself, 
even that in wedlock, was regarded as defiling.?— παρθένοι. This predicate 
was not seldom ascribed also to men.® In order to avoid the thoughts forced 
from the word, and not seldom made the best of by Catholic interpreters in 
the sense of monastic asceticism,‘ it is regarded either directly as figurative,® 
and referring to spiritual purity, especially to abstaining from the worship 
of idols,® or, if we abide by the proper sense of the words, to sexual purity, 
as an example of all virtues.’/ Hofm. attempts to remove the difficulty by 
saying that the declaration is concerning believers of the last time,’ to 
whom celibacy will become a moral necessity, because of the special circum- 
stances-of those times. But nothing is said here concerning Christians of 
that time. The expedient of Bleek 9 and De Wette, who regard it as refer- 
ring to abstinence from all lewdness, as it was ordinarily combined with the 
worship of idols, is forbidden by the expression μετὰ τ. γυναικῶν, which is 
altogether general. — Nothing else seems to remain than with Augustine,! 
Jerome," Beda, Andr., to explain it in the proper sense, and to acknowledge 
the idea, to which also other points in the text lead,” that entire abstinence 
from all sexual intercourse belongs to the distinguished holiness of that one 
hundred and forty-four thousand,!? because of which they enjoy also distin- 
guished blessedness. [See Note LXXV., p. 404.] This is declared by the 
words immediately following: οὗτοι εἰσιν οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες TH ἀρνίῳ ὅπου ἂν ὑπάγει. 
There is generally found here a description of the obedience of believers 
who follow the Lamb even to the cross and to death;14 but because of the 


1 Schriftbew., II. 2, p. 392. 

2 On the expression ἐμολυνθ., cf. Isa. lix. 3; 
1 Cor. vili..7; 2:Cor. ‘vii. 1. 

8 Cf. Fabricius, Cod. apocr. Vet. Test., II1., 
pp. 92,98 (where Josephis called an ἀνὴρ παρθέ- 
vos); Kypke, Observ. sacr. ad ἢ. Ll. (παρθένον 
via from Nonnus, on John xix. 26); Suidas, 
see on ᾽Αβελ. 

4 N. de Lyra, Stern. 

δ Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 2. 

6 Victorin., Zeger, Coccejus, Grot., Vitr., 
Wolf; cf. also Ziill. 

7 Hicbh., Beng., Hengstenb., who says that 
sexual intercourse, as legally defiling, is a fig- 
urative designation of sinful defilement in 
general. 

8 Cf. also Ὁ. a Lap. 

9 Beitr., p. 185. 


10 De 8. virg., 6. 27. Opp. Antw., 1701, T. 


VI., p. 258. 
11 Adv. Jovin., I.c.40. Opp. Franeof, 1634, 
T.IL., p. 34. 12 See above. 


13 So also Neander, p. 548, who, from this 


mode of contemplation, properly recognizes a 
mark that the writer of the Apoc. is not identi- 
cal with the Evangelist John. —If the exposi- 
tion above given be acknowledged, it must also 
be maintained (against Ew. ii.) that the view, 
which, to the writer of the Apoc., is funda- 
mental, of the impurity of a// sexual inter- 
course, is significantly distinguished from 
what is said in Matt. xix. 11 sqq., 1 Cor. vii. 
32, 34, since here, under the express presump- 
tion that sexual intercourse in marriage is an 
ordinance which is divine, and by no means in 
itself impure, it is asserted that certain cir- 
cumstances can make a complete abstinence 
from marriage possible and necessary. Possi- 
bly the too far-reaching statement of the writer 
of the Apocalypse is occasioned by the fact 
that he wishes to emphasize in the highest de- 
gree the contrast with the worshippers of the 
beast, i.e., the Gentiles, with their sexual 
abominations. 

14 Cf.. Matt. x. 38. Coecej.,..Grot:, Vitr., 
Wolf, who recall the fact that the soldiers were 


394 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


present tense, which here expresses the present condition, — while the holy 
manifestation in the earthly life is designated by the aor.,— there can be 
meant only a description of the blessed reward which those who have died 
are enjoying! with the Lamb.? It is meant that everywhere whither the 
Lamb goes, there that chosen one hundred and forty-four thousand accom- 
pany him; whether it be that a certain space in heaven remain inaccessible 
to other saints, or that the latter do not form the constant retinue of the 
Lamb, at least not in the same way as the former. — οὗτοι ἠγοράσθησαν ἀπὸ τῶν 
ἀνθρώπων ἀπαρχὴ τῷ θ., x.7.4. What applies to all the redeemed, viz., that they 
have been bought unto God by the blood of the Lamb, from among men, of 
the earth (ver. 3), or from all nations and kindreds (v. 9), applies in an 
eminent sense to the one hundred and forty-four thousand: they are bought 
as an ἀπαρχή. They appear, therefore, not as the select first fruits from 
the entire world,? but from believers, or, at any rate, from the blessed. 
The correlate to the ἀπαρχῇ is afforded by the context: τῶν ἠγορασμένων. ΑΒ 
such select first fruits the one hundred and forty-four thousand appear, with 
respect both to their peculiar holiness (παρθένοι), and also their peculiar 
blessedness (ἀκολ. 7. dpv., «.7.A.).— Besides distinguished virginity, in ver. 5 
another peculiar perfection is mentioned, which that multitude had mani- 
fested in their earthly life (εὑρέθη, aor.) ; viz., perfect truthfulness never 
clouded by a lie. The expression ψεῦδος + is to be taken in its general sense, 
and not to be limited to the les of idolatry,® heresy, or denial of Christ. A 
contrast is easily conceivable to the sphere of falsehood in which the sedu- 
cing false prophet’? moves, with the worshippers of the beast accepting his 
lies. Cf. also, in ix. 22, in an enumeration of the characteristic sins of the 
inhabitants of the earth, the juxtaposition of πορνεία and κλέμματα. ---- ἄμωμοι 
yap εἰσιν. The conclusion which stands especially in analogous relation to 
the immediately preceding special point, as the παρθ. y. eic., ver. 4, to the 
immediately preceding clause,?? is, nevertheless, because of the comprehensive 
meaning of the predicate ἄμωμοι,}} especially suitable for rounding the entire 
description (vv. 4, 5). 

The purpose of the entire vision (vv. 1-5), in connection with ch. xiii., 
i.e., in contrast with what is there reported, is, as the exposition of the 
details proves, not that of showing how the Church abides in invincible glory 
opposed to the dragon,’ or how in the midst of the corrupt Church (ch. xiii.) 


6 Cf. Hengstenb. 

7 xiii. 14. 

8 Cf. Ewald, Ebrard. 

9 Cf., besides, 1 Thess. iv. 48q., and ver. 6. 
10 See above. 

τ Cf. Eph. i. 4, v. 27; Col. i. 22. 

12 Primas, Beda: **The Church, rejoicing 


accustomed to swear: ἀκολουθεῖν τοῖς στρατη- 
γοῖς ὅποι ποτ᾽ av ἄγωσιν [““ἴο follow the gener- 
als whithersoever they would go’’]. Beng., 
De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, Ew. ii. 

1 Cf. vii. 17. 

2 Augustine, l. c., but he is not consistent; 
Andr., Ziill., Stern. 


3 Against De Wette, Hengstenb., who im. 
properly appeal to Jas. i. 18, where the ex- 
press designation amapx. τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων 
is given; cf. also Jer. ii. 3. ᾿ 

4 Cf. xxi. 27. 

5 Grot.: ‘“‘They did not invoke the gods, 
which are not gods; ”’ Beng. 


in her usual glory and number, encouraged 
for the conquest of the burdens of her op- 
pression, with sublime joy of contemplation, 
celebrates at once, both with joy and invita- 
tion the conflicts of her King.’’ Cf. Calov., C. 
a Lap., ete. 


CHAP. XIV. 6. 895 


the true Church still continues,! or how the Lamb with his hosts stands 
ready to help by the side of the oppressed Church ;? but ὃ the manifestation 
of the blessed with the Lamb in eternal glory is intended to give believers 
who are on earth, and exposed to persecution on the part of the dragon, a 
pledge inspiring courage and patience (cf. ver. 11), that if they remain faith- 
ful they shall also attain to that glory. 

In every respect preposterous are the historical explanations in Coccejus,* 
Vitr.,5 etc., according to which, especially, the one hundred and forty-four 
thousand are regarded as the Waldenses. — Christiani has interpreted the 
one hundred and forty-four thousand even as the woman preserved in 
the wilderness,® and thus as the Church of the last times. The final Israelitic 
church is also understood’? by Luthardt. 

Vy. 6-20. Two visions, whose beginning in each case is marked by the 
formula xa? eidov (vv. 6, 14), bringing the declarations of the judgment upon 
the world paying homage to the beast (ch. xiii.), stand therefore in inner 
connection with the vision (vy. 1-5), because they serve in their way for 
the encouragement of believers oppressed by the beast and his worshippers. 
The first vision (vv. 6-13). The first vision is concluded with an express 
reference to the foundation of the patience for believers lying here (ver. 12), 
since a heavenly voice proclaims a glorious promise for those who are faith- 
ful, and expressly enjoins that John should write down this assurance that 
is so important (ver. 13). 

Ver. 6 sq. ἄλλον dyy., aS x. 1, in distinction from those that appeared in 
former scenes. Against the idea and phraseology of the Apoc., Hilgenf.® 
refers’ the ἄλλον dyy. to the Messiah, designated in ver. 1, whom he regards 
the first with respect. to the angel here mentioned (vv. 6, 8, 9). — πετόμενον 
ἐν μεσουρανῆματι. Like the eagle which (viii. 13) flies in the zenith, this 
angel is to reach the whole earth with its cry. —éyovra. Cf. x. 2, 1. 16.— 
εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον. As the article is lacking, the gospel of God’s eternal 
counsel of salvation cannot be meant. Too generally, and missing the idea 
αἰώνιον, C. a Lap. also explains: A message which promises eternal blessings 
in heaven. This reference De Wette combines, without proper clearness, 
with that which is alone correct, to the decree of God from eternity with 
respect to the things proclaimed in the gospel which the angel has. It is 
not, however, the summons to repentance sounded forth in ver. 7, that 
forms the contents of the message, which is a gospel because of a term being 
afforded even enemies for repentance; 195 but the authentic explanation is to 
be derived from x. 7,11 where by the same expression (εὐηγγέλισε) reference is 


1 Vitr. 
2 Ewald: **The Messiah with his select 


seemingly new contents, viz., the evangelical 
confession of the Bohemian brethren. 


saints prepared for war.”’ 

8 vii. 9 sqq. 

4 Ver. 4: Voices against the worship of 
images, as the Council of Frankfort in the 
year 800, and other protests against papal er- 
rors. 

5 The players on the harp are Wiclif, Hus, 
etc. The 6. xacv., ver. 3, is a confession of 


6 xii. 14. 

7 Cf. vii. 4 sqq. 

8 p. 438. 

9 This is the same as the opinion of the old 
Protestant expositors, who understand, by the 
angel, Luther. See also Ebrard. 

10 Hengstenb.; cf. against him, Ebrard. 
11 Cf. Ziill. 


396 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


made directly to the eternal counsel of God, with respect to the glorious end 
at the coming of the Lord. As all patience and victorious fidelity of be- 
lievers depend upon this message, it also contains the ground for the suc- 
ceeding call to repentance in ver. 7. -- εὐαγγελέσαι ἐπὶ τοὺς καθημένους, x.7.A, 
The infin., which explains the idea εὐαγγέλιον, is in its formal dependence © 
upon ἔχοντα to be explained indeed from expressions like Luke xii. 50, 
vii. 40, John xvi. 12:1 yet the distinction is to be observed, that in this pas- 
sage the εὐαγγ. αἰών. appears chiefly as the visible object which the angel has 
(ἔχ., see above) in his hand — possibly in the form of a little book. The 
ἐπὶ with the acc. following εὐαγγελίσαι, which does not occur elsewhere in such 
combination, has a meaning analogous to that of the ἐπί with the dative 
occurring with xpodyretca. Not without violence is Ewald’s explanation: 
“ Above — because the angel flies above all lands.” —- To the dwellers on earth 
goes forth the evangelical message of the angel in the same sense as in x. 11, 
the προφητεῦσαι of John, which has indeed also an evangelical import (x. 7). 
[See Note LXXVI., p. 000.] To the ungodly dwellers on earth, there pro- 
ceeds from the message which is to all believers, a true εὐαγγέλιον, but 
threatens the Lord’s enemies with his coming to judgment, the strongest 
admonition to repentance. In ver. 7, therefore, there follows: φοβήθητε τὸν 
θεὸν καὶ δότε αὐτῷ δόξαν,3 with the express emphasis of the reason just indicated: 
ὅτι ἦλθεν, K.7.1.4— καὶ mpooxvvgoate τῷ ποιῆσαντι, k.7.4. They are to worship, not 
the beast, but Him who has manifested himself by his work of creation as 
the sole true God and Lord of the world, who also will punish his despisers.*® 

Ver. 8. It is a characteristic of the dramatic vividness of the scene, that 
every new point, which is to be proclaimed, is committed to a special angel.® 
The angel now coming forward is distinguished by the compound formula 
ἄλλος δεύτερος from the ἄλλος dyy. mentioned in ver. 6.7 — ἔπεσεν, ἔπεσεν βαβυλών 
ἡ μεγάλη. The cry,’ in a prophetical way, represents the sure and near 
impending judgment as already fulfilled.2 The name of the O. T. secular 
power is transferred to that of the N. T.,!° i.e., to Rome,!! by not only indi- 
cating by means of this name its ungodly nature,} but also by the adjective 
ἡ μεγάλη, especially emphasizing how extent and fulness of power 18 are power- 
less for the protection of the vain foundation of self-assertion 15 from com- 
plete overthrow.15 — ἣ ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου, κιτ.Δ. As in the ancient prophets, alongside 
of the threatenings of punishment, the precise charges on which those threats 
rest are generally presented, so also here the guilt of great Babylon is estab- 
lished. The view portrayed in xvii. 2, 4, xviii. 3, lies here already at the 
foundation. Babylon-Rome appears as a harlot who has seduced all the 
dwellers on earth to commit fornication with her: “She made all nations 
drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” The expression in xviii. 3 


1 De Wette. 2x. 2. 9 Cf. xi. 18. 
2 (Civxieta. 10 xiii. 1 sqq., xviii. 10. 
4 Cf. xi. 18, vi. 7. 11 So remarks on ch. xiii. 17. 
5 Cf. iv. 11; Isa. xl. 12 sqq., xli. 1 sqq. 12 Cf. xi. 8. 
6 “Quot res nunciande, totidem nuncii” 13 Of, xiii. 2, 4. 
(Grot.). 14 Dan. iv. 27. 
7 Cf. examples in Wetst. 15 Klief. understands ‘‘ the metropolis of the 


8 xviii. 2; Isa. xxi. 9; cf. Jer. 1. 2, li. 8. last heathen secular power.”’ 


CHAP, XIV. 10. 397 


is incorrectly explained, if the θυμοῦ be regarded otherwise than in the 
firmly established sense of “wrath,’”’ ver. 10.1 According to the linguistic 
usage of the Apoc., it is the glow and rage of wrath,? and not any other 
passion, which is designated by θυμός. But it is impossible to seek this 
wrath in the harlot Babylon herself, and then to understand the πορνεία of 
cunning arts, dissembling love, with which wrathful Babylon destroys the 
nations. With perfect correctness, De Wette says that the entire expres- 
sion depends upon a combination of two ideas: the wine of fornication,* 
wherewith Babylon has intoxicated the nations, is at the same time char- 
acterized as a oivoc τοῦ θυμοὺ (viz., of the Divine wrath), and it is, conse- 
quently, represented ® how the wine offered by the harlot Babylon to the 
nations, with which she has intoxicated them and led them to fornication 
with her, is also a wine which, because of the Divine wrath, has caused that 
drunkenness in the nations. It is analogous to what is instructively said in 
Rom. i. 21. The πορνεία is the idolatry practised with great Babylon, the 
all-ruling secular power. 

Vy. 9-11. That the wine of fornication is at the same time a wine of 
Divine wrath (ver. 8), follows from the message of the third angel, inasmuch 
as this expressly announces to the worshippers of the beast the impending 
Divine retribution: καὶ αὐτὸς πίεται ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ Tov θεοῦ, x.7.4., for the 
words εἴ τις προσκυνεῖ, x.7.A., describe, according to the measure of ch. xiii.,? 
the meaning of the figurative expression πορνεία, ver. 8. 

Ver. 10. The καὶ αὐτός ὃ represents the details, as well as likewise the 
harlot herself, incurring the judgment.9— πίεται (fut.). Winer, p. 84.— 
The οἶνος rod θυμοῦ τ. θ. is represented in the ποτήριον τῆς ὀργῆς αὑτου; but the 
dreadful power of this wine of wrath is rendered conspicuous, since it is 
itself designated: τοῦ κεκερασμένου ἀκράτου. It is meant that in the cup of 
indignation there is found unmixed wine (ἄκρατος, Ps. xxiv. 9, LXX.), i.e., 
not teinpered with water, and hence that the wine of wrath, thus set forth, 
works with its entire force. The contradiction in the words occurring in 
the connection of xexepaou. and ἀκράτ. is without difficulty, because? the 
custom of adapting the wine for ordinary use, by mixing it with water, has 
brought with it a usage of words in which the xepdv, without giving promi- 
nence to its special signification, attains the further sense of éyyéew εἰς κέρας, 
διδόναι πιεῖν, etc.44 So Ewald: “I have drunken wine so prepared (mixed) as 
to be pure;” De Wette, Ebrard, ete. According to Ziill., the ἀκράτου is 
regarded not as undiluted wine, but as designating the “compounded,” i.e., 


1 Against Wetst., Grot., who make 6uu., 
‘poison; ᾽ ef. also Eichh.; and against Ewald, 
Ziill.: ‘* Burning wine, intoxicating wine.” 

ἘΣ, 19; |xix. 15. ΟἿΣ XV. ἢν XVis Ly also 
xiii. 2. 

ὃ Hengstenb. 

4 Cf. xvii. 2, 4: Jer. li. 7. 

5 Cf. Jer. xxv. 15 8qq., xxvii. sqq. 

6 Ver. 9, xiii. 4,12. Grot., Ew., De Wette, 
ete. 

7 It really makes no difference that in xiii. 
16 the ἐπι τ. χειρ. precedes, and in this pas 


sage the ἐπὶ τ. μετώπ. But with respect to 
change of case (cf. Winer, p. 382), it cannot be 
disregarded that in both places (cf. also xiii. 1) 
the genitive precedes. Cf. vii. 1, where, how- 
ever, a modification of the idea is recognizable 
in ἐπὶ τῆς y., τῆς 8. (on the earth, the sea) and 
ἐπι τι δένδρον (on any tree, against any tree). 
The accus. occurs twice, xx. 4. 

8 Cf. ver. 17. 

9 Cf. Ewald. 

10 Cf. Wetst. 

11 xviii. 6. 


398 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


with additions, as spices, myrrh, opiates, etc., whereby the Orientals make 
their wine still stronger; and thus it is indicated that the Divine cup of 
indignation contains no wine but a pure mixture, “pure essence of mix- 
tures.” Hengstenb. interprets artificially, in a still different way. — καὶ 
βασανισθήσονται. Cf. ix. 5. The punishment of hell here described (ἐν πυρὶ 
x. θείῳ, ix. 17, xx. 10) is not, with Grotius, to be resolved into pangs of con- 
science. —évaemuov τῶν ἁγίων ayy. κ. ἐν τ. ἀρνίον. Incorrectly, De Wette: Accord- 
ing to the judgment. Rather, they suffer this their pain before the eyes of 
the holy angels, and of the Lamb despised and persecuted by the worship- 
pers of the beast, which appears just on this account to render it the more 
bitter.1— καὶ ὁ καπνὸς τοῦ βασανισμοῦ αὐτῶν, x.7.A., according to Isa. xxxiv. 10. 
Cf. xix. 3. It is to be observed, that in this passage βασανισμός is passive, in 
the sense of βάσανος. Cf., on the other hand, ix. ὅ. --- οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἀνάπαυσιν, 
k.7.A., Viz., in their βασανισμός.2 The expression as iv. 8. --- καὶ εἴ τις Aap. 
With grave emphasis this expression, individualizing the general conception, 
oi προσκυνοῦντες, affirms that every one who in any way resigns himself to the 
beast ὃ incurs that eternal torment. 

Ver. 12. Here where the declaration of the judgment impending the 
worshippers of the beast occurs so definitely and solemnly (vv. 6-11), 
the encouraging reference to the sources opened thereby to believers for 
the patience required of them (ἡ voy.) is still easier than in a similar con- 
nection, xiii. 10. — οἱ τηροῦντες. ‘The construction is formless, as i. 5, 11. 20. 
On the thought, cf. xii. 17, 111. 10, τὴν πίστιν Ιησοῦ. “The faith in Jesus.” 
This, in fact, is parallel with the μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ, xii. 17, because faith on him 
(Ἰησ., gen. obj.) depends upon the testimony proceeding from Jesus (Ἰησ., 
gen. subj.). 

Ver. 18. <A heavenly voice,t concerning which it is in no way said to 
what person it belongs,> commands John to write down what was itself 
just proclaimed as a word of revelation of his spirit (viz., Maxap. — μετ᾽ αὐτῶν), 
because ὃ this word of revelation contains the most effectual consolation for 
believers who are oppressed by the secular power, and even threatened with 
death.7 Ziill. is wrong in considering that there are two voices, for the 
voice of the Spirit (vai, Aey. τ. πν., iva, «.7.A.) is distinguished here as little 
from the “voice from heaven,” as in the epistles, chs. ii. and 111., what the 
Spirit says is to be distinguished from what the Lord commands to be 
written. The voice from heaven belongs to a heavenly person, who, as 
interpreter of the Spirit, communicates his revelation to the prophet in 
intelligible words. The first sentence, which concludes with ἀπ’ ἄρτι, con- 
tains what is properly the main point of the consolatory declaration, and, 
as it were, the theme, whose meaning (μακάριοι) is more fully explained in 
the following sentence. Not only by the formal plan, but also in a still 
more inward way, is this latter part of the heavenly discourse to be distin- 
guished from the former; the ναὶ already shows us the beginning of a new 


1 Cf. xi. 12; Luke xvi. 23 sqq. 5 Against Hengstenb., who wants to refer 
Hengstenb. it to a departed saint, or one of the elders. 
2 xx. 10. 6 Cf. χῖχ 9. xxi. δὲ 


3 De Wette. 4 χ, 4, τ ΟΥΣ xii. ἢ, x: 16: 


CHAP. XIV. 13. 399 


declaration, and a new declaration is also actually presented, since —as the 
parenthetical words λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα affirm — this confirmation and exposition 
(vai — iva ἀναπαήσονται, x.7.A.), added to the. first words Μακάριοι --- ἀπ’ ἄρτι, 
appear in a definite way as a revelation of the Spirit. It is, therefore, incor- 
rect to refer the dz’ ἄρτι to the latter sentence, whether in the sense of Vitr., 
who combines the dz’ ἄρτι with ἀναπαῆσ., or in that of Lamb., Bos., who! writes 
ἀπαρτί (i.e., ἀπηρτισμένως), and tries to explain the wonderfully composed for- 
mula of assurance ἀπαρτὶ vai by the absolute plane profecto.2 The reference 
of the ἀπ’ ἄρτιϑ to the emphatically prefixed conception of μακάριοι is shown 
by the relation of the thought. By a combination with ἀποθνῆσκ., Ziill. 
reaches the incorrect interpretation: “ Better on this account than those who 
experience the impending time of distress, are the martyrs dying just at the 
beginning of this time;”*® but the conception μακάριοι means much more and 
differently from what Ziill. expresses, and to refer it alone to martyrs is as 
certainly incorrect as ἀποθνήσκειν ἐν κυρίῳ is not “to die for the sake of the 
Lord.” §— The dead “ who die? in the Lord,” i.e., bound with him by faith, 
and kept in fellowship with him 8 by fidelity to the faith even unto death,® 
are “blessed from henceforth,” because, viz., now the glorious end, which 
will bring condemnation to enemies 19 and complete blessedness to all believ- 
ers, immediately impends. This is the eschatological reference of the 
ax’ ἄρτι 153 presented in the connection, in its combination with the idea 
μακάριοι, Which in itself points already to the goal of the Christian hope. — 
Incorrect is the explanation of Stern, who, in uncertainty, refers the az’ ἄρτι 
to the entire sentence μακάρ. --- ἀποθν.. and incorrectly tries to apply what is 
said only of the end of time in such sense that then they who die in Christ 
immediately enter paradise — with intermission of purgatory, which is, 
therefore, indirectly fixed for the dying prior to that final time; while 
just as incorrectly, in order to escape the doctrine of purgatory, Calov., etc., 
explain the ἀπ’ ἄρτι by “from the death of every one.” [See Note LXXVIL., 
p- 405. ] The future is formed from 
ἀναπαύω, just aS κατακαῆσομαι from κατακαίω.138 The iva here can depend as 
little upon the parenthetical λέγει τ. πν.14 as the iva in 2 Cor. viii. 7 upon the 
succeeding λέγω. But this passage is not, with Ewald and De Wette, to be 
explained from 2 Cor. (above cited) and Eph. v. 33, as an idea lying at the 
foundation of a purposive command; but the close analogy of xxii. 14 shows 
that the clause iva, «.7.4., is to be elucidated after the manner of the restric- 
tive idea of μακάριοι,15 that it is expressed at the same time how the goal of 


iva ἀναπαήσονται ἐκ τῶν κόπων αὐτῶν. 


designation given more accurately than ina 
mode having no regard to time. 

8 1 Cor. xv. 18; 1 Thess. iv. 16. 

9 ii. 10. 


1 Exercit. phil. Francg., 1713, p. 299 sq. 

2 j.e., With unconditional certainty. 

3 Matt. xxvi. 64; Johni. 52. 

4 Beda, C. a Lap., Calov., Wolf, Ew., De 


Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

5 Isa. lvii. 1. Cf. Coccejus: ‘‘ The time is 
impending, in which it will be better to die 
than to live.””’ Hammond. 

6 Also against Grot., Laun., Vitr., etc. 

7 The part. pres. marks the words οἱ ἐν κυρ. 
ἀποθν. in relation to the idea οἱ νεκροί (Ziill., 
incorrectly : ‘‘ Those exposed to death’’), as a 


10 vi. 10, viii. 3 sqq. 

11 vii. 9 sqq., xi. 16 sqq., xiv. 1 sqq., xxi. 1 
sqq. 

12 Cf. Matt. xxvi. 64, 

13 Winer, p. 83. 14 Ebrard. 

15 (Hengstenb.) Not αποθν., as Winer, p. 
297, attempts, who by the partic. understands 
the temp. fin. ἀποθνήσκουσι. 


400 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


blessedness (μακάρ.), held forth by the promise, includes that heavenly dva- 
παυσις, and is to be afforded those dying in the Lord.1 The solemn expres- 
sion 2 which designates the blessed rest from all troubles of the earthly life 
of conflict 8 is the more significant, because it sets forth a peculiar opposition 
to the lot of the damned, ver. 11. — τὰ δὲ ἔργα αὑτῶν ἀκολουθεῖ μετ’ αὐτῶν. ‘The 
δὲ marks excellently the contrast between the just-mentioned ἀνάπαυσις ἐκ τῶν 
κόπων and the ἔργα, to which the κόποι themselves belong.* This significant 
contrast becomes uncertain if the idea of the “ works” 5 be resolved into that 
of the reward itself.6 The thought, which occurs in like manner both in the 
classics and in the rabbins,’ is the profound view that the works wrought by 
believers in the Lord (1 Cor. xv. 58) are themselves an eternal good. 

The entire section, vv. 6-13, Hammond refers to the times from Domi- 
tian to Constantine. — The old Lutheran exposition® understood by the 
angel with the eternal gospel, Luther. Such an interpretation was made 
already by Michael Stifel, in the year 1522. Bugenhagen took ver. 6 sqq. 
as the text for his funeral sermon on Luther.® A Catholic compositor, who 
was engaged in setting up the Lutheran Bible, Wittenberg, 1623, committed 
great offence by substituting “neu” (new) for “ewig” (everlasting).1° Calov. 
understood by the angel (ver. 8), the second Martin, viz., Chemnitz with his 
Examen Trid. Cone. (ἔπεσεν BaB.); by the angel (ver. 9), the antagonists of 
the Calixtines, among whom he reckons also himself. — Bengel preferred to 
refer the angel (ver. 6) to John Arnd; the μεσουράνημα is— Germany. The 
angel (ver. 8) is probably Spener. 

Vv. 14-20. After the paracletic episode (ver. 12 sq.), there follow again, 
in a new vision (ver. 14: καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδού, cf. ver. 1), symbolical declarations 
of the judgment now impending over the earth.14_ Cf. ver. 6 sqq. 

Vv. 14-16. In the first picture of the ripeness of the earth for judgment,” 
it is the coming Judge himself who appears on a white cloud, with a sharp 
sickle in his hand. It is of like significance, when, from the first of the 
seals,18 the victorious form of the Lord himself proceeds. — The description 
(ver. 14) allows us to think only of Christ himself,!* but could not mean 
an angel,!5 who possibly represented Christ,}® or “the heroes and chiefs who, 
armed with zeal for the truth, plead the cause of the Church, and executed 
the judgments of God.” 17 Decisive is the solemn designation ὅμοιον υἱῷ ἀνθρώ- 
που; 15. also the appearance on the cloud,!9 and the golden crown indicating a 


VOT ab 90; 
2 Cf. Heb. iv. 9: κατάπαυσις. 
3 κοπ., li. 8. Cf. xxi. 4. a: 2. 


5 Cf. ii. 5, 19, iii. 8. 

6 De Wette; cf. Grot.: “The memory of 
deeds.” 

7 Sophael., Philact., 1420: ἀθάνατον ἀρετήν 
[‘‘immortal virtue’’]; v. 1443: οὐ yap ἡ εὐσέ- 
Bera συνθνήσκει βροτοῖς [* Piety does not die 
with mortals”’].  Aboth., vi. 9: ‘* At the hour 
of man’s departure, gold and silver do not ac- 
company him, but the law and good works.” 

8 « Almost all of our writers”? (Wolf). Cf. 
also Vitr. 


9 Cf. Bengel, Zrkl. Off., p. 158. 

10 Of. Wolf on ver. 6. 

11 Doing homage to the beast, ch. xiii. 

12 Joel iv. 13. Cf. Knobel, Proph., I. 369 
sqq- 

13 yi. 2. 

14 Beda, Andr., Ejichh., Calov., Ew. i., 
Hengstenb., Ebrard, Volkm. 

15 Grot., Vitr., Beng., Ztill., De Wette. 
16 Grot., De Wette, Ew. ii. 

17 Vitr. 

18 Cf, i. 13; Dan. vii. 13. 

19.Cf. i. 7; Dan., 15 δὲ 


CHAP. XIV. 17-20. 401 


special glory as victor,! make the reference to Christ himself still more 
certain. The expression ἄλλος dyy. (ver. 15), besides, does not compel us 
here? to understand an angel also in ver. 14, because the ἄλλος alludes to 
the angels mentioned in ver. 6 sqq,? and the objection that Christ himself 
could not have received a command# from an angel, is settled by the fact 
that the angel is only the bearer of the command coming from God.® See, 
also, on ver. 17 ---- καθήμενον. The accus., as iv. 4. --- ἔχων. Cf. ver. 12, ver. 7, 
x. 2.—dpén. ὀξύ. Therefore serviceable for use in such a way that this 
sickle allows nothing to stand which is ripe for cutting. — ἐκ τοὺ ναοῦ, ver. 15, 
ef. xi. 19. The angel appears as one immediately sent from God. πέμψον, 
ef. Joel iv. 13; Mark iv. 39. The expression is here especially significant, 
because the idea is presented that the sickle thrust forth on the earth 
(ver. 16) is to cut down there. — 7 ὥρα θερίσα: construed as ix. 10, xi. 16. — 
ἐξηράνθη. The sign of the ripeness, since the figure of a field of corn is here® 
presented. — ὁ θερισμὸς τῆς γῆς. The authentic explanation follows (ver. 16): 
ἐθερίσθη 7 γῆ. +The whole earth is the harvest-field; the ripe stalks are those 
καθήμενοι ἐπι τ. y-, Ver. 6. 

Vv. 17-20. Another angel,’ likewise coming from the heavenly temple, 
and therefore from God himself, intrusted with a work symbolizing the final 
judgment, has, as one like the Son of man (ver. 14), a sharp sickle, by which 
the ripened clusters in the vineyard of the earth are to be harvested. Not 
only does this occur at the command brought again by another angel, but 
the clusters are also pressed. 

καὶ avtéc. The formula® marks only that the same thing is said by this 
person as by the person designated in ver. 14; but in other respects the per- 
sons are by no means “put on the same level,’’® so that it does not follow from 
ver. 17 that the one like the Son of man is an angel. Still less, héwever, can 
it be inferred to the contrary, from ver. 14, that the ἄγγελος (ver. 17) is not an 
angel, but the Lord himself.1°— The other angel (ver. 18), who brings to 
the one mentioned in ver. 17 the command for harvesting the vineyard of the 
earth, is in a twofold respect significantly characterized, according to his 
place of starting: ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, and according to his peculiar 
power: ὁ ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ πυρός. He came forth “out of the altar.” 12 
This idea is derived from the ἐκ, which is to be rendered here “from,” 12 as 
little as the ἀπό in ix. 15. Its meaning is to be derived from the descrip- 
tion (vill. 3 sqq.),18 in connection with the designation of the ἐξουσία which 
the angel has over fire.14 The same altar beneath which the souls of the 
martyrs lie, erying for vengeance, and from which not only the fire is taken 
which, cast upon the earth, gives the signal in general for the trumpet- 
visions announcing the beginning of the vengeance, but whence, also, in 
the sixth trumpet-vision especially, the voice sounds that calls forth a de- 


1 Cf. vi. 2, xix. 12. 7 Cf. ver. 15. 8 Cf. ver. 10. 
2 Cf., on the contrary, x. 1, vii. 2. 9 De Wette. 
8 In ver. 6. also, the ἄλλος does not have its 10 Against Hengstenb. 
reference in what immediately precedes. 11 Mentioned in viii. 3 sqq., xvi. 7. 
4 Ver. 15: Πέμψον, x.7.A. 12 Ew. i., De Wette, Ebrard. 
5 Cf. Mark xiii. 32. 13 Cf, vi. 9, ix. 18, xvi. 7. 


6 Cf., on the other hand, ver. 18 sqq. 14 ἐπὶ τ, wup., as xi. 6; cf. vi. 8. 


΄ 


402 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

structive army upon the earth, appears significantly in this passage as the 
proper place of an angel who transmits the command for the execution of 
judgment, and who, since he has power over fire,! manifests himself as one 
whose sending brings an answer to the prayers of the martyrs, and thus, by 
his entire manner and appearance, recalls the blood-guilt of the enemies 
whose blood is now to cover the earth (ver. 20). — rpiynoov. Luke vi. 44. — 
καὶ ἔβαλεν, x.7.A., ver. 19. Cf. ver. 16. Here, however, the figure is not 
limited to the mere cutting-off of the clusters, but the pressing also follows: 
καὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς τὴν ληνὸν τ. θυμ. τ. 0. τὸν μέγαν. In reference to the remarkable 
combination of the mase. τὸν wey. with the fem. τὴν λην,2 cf. Winer, p. 490, 
who explains the mase. by the fact that ὁ λην. also occurs. But a reason why 
this change of the gen. has happened is scarcely to be found. At all events, 
Proy. xvili. 14 should be recalled, where the word 3% occurs first as masce. 
because the spirit appears in more forcible activity, and afterwards as fem., 
because, since it suffers from disease, it is represented in feminine weakness. 
So, too, the mase. τόν μέγ. could be attached to the ordinary feminine form τὴν 
Anv., because this form appears appropriate to the representation of the wrath 
of God as active in the pressing. — καὶ ἐπατήθη ἡ Anv. The standing expres- 
sion: cf. Joel iv. 13; Isa. lxiii. 2 sq. — ἔξωθεν τῆς πόλεως. “The city,” without 
further designation, cannot be Rome,? but only Jerusalem; yet not the 
heavenly Jerusalem,‘ also not Jerusalem so far as the holy city represents 
the Church,® but the real, earthly Jerusalem, against which, as is stated in 
xx. 9, the hosts of the world rush, but will be annihilated there before the 
holy city. Incorrectly, Grotius: “This did not occur in the city, because 
there were no Jews there.”7—aiua. In Isa. lxiii. ὃ, LXX., the blood is also 
expressly mentioned, which is properly meant by the figure of the juice of 
grapes. — ἄχρι τῶν χαλινῶν τὼν ἵππων, x.7.A. How fearful the bloodshed is, is 
illustrated by designating it as a stream of blood which is so deep as to 
reach to the reins of the horses wading therein, while its extent is given as 
sixteen hundred furlongs.’ In this sense, the first expression, ἄχρι τ. χαλ. τ. 
ἵππ., is understood by almost all expositors;® but the reference to the extent 
of the stream of blood is not without difficulty. Passing by purely arbitrary 
explanations,!° only two possibilities are offered: either the designation of 


1 Viz., of that altar; cf. Grot., Vitr., 5 Hengstenb.: ‘*‘ It is declared that not the 


Ewald ; but not over fire in general (cf. xvi. 5), 
for this general reference is here entirely out 
of place. 

2 The MSS. allow neither τὸν Anv. — τὸν μέγ.» 
nor τὴν Anv.—THv pey. ἡ Anv. Occurs also in 
ver. 20, xix. 15. Liticke (Zinl., II., p. 464) re- 
gards it possible, even though very harsh, for 
the τὸν μέγαν, by a construction according to 
the sense, to refer to τοῦ θυμοῦ τ. 6., and to 
have the meaning of τοῦ μεγάλον. Yet he also 
recurs to Winer’s explanation. 

3 Hammond, Wetst., Calov., Hilgenf., Kien- 
len, ete. 

4 Beda, Marlorat., who recall that the lost 
shall suffer pain outside of heaven, viz., in 
hell. 


members of the Church, but the world outside 
the Church, shall be judged.” 

6 Cf. Eichh., Ziill., Ew., De Wette, etc. 

7 Cf. the close of the verse. 

8 On the ἀπὸ before σταδ., cf. Meyer on 
John xi. 18. 

9 Nevertheless, many of the older commen- 
tators have allegorized also here. Thus Vic- 
torin. found it indicated that also ‘‘the 
princes,’”’ Beda that even the devil, would not 
be exempt. MHengstenb., incorrectly, brings 
in the horsemen of xix. 14. Cf. Ebrard. 

10 e.g., Wetst., who referred it to the vast- 
ness of Otho’s camp on the Po. 


CHAP. XIV. 17-20. 403 
the measure must be regarded as schematical, whether it depend upon the 
adoption of an hyperbole not to be urged with respect to details,! or the num- 
ber four? be considered as a root, and then the number 1,600 reduced to 
4x 4x 100,8 or 40 x 40,4 or 4 x 400,5 be taken in the sense which Vic- 
torin.® and Beda already have; or the sixteen hundred furlongs must be 
understood accurately and properly, so that the length of Palestine is desig- 
nated, — according to the statement of Jerome, who’ says: “ From Dan to 
Beersheba, which is extended scarcely to the distance of clx. miles.” In 
accordance with this are the explanations not only of Eichh., Heinr., Ziill., 
Ewald, etc., who® maintained that the scene of ver. 20 is in the Holy Land, 
but also of C. a Lap., ete., who understand by the Holy Land the Church; 
and of Grot. and Beng., who, in a different respect, wanted to reach the 
meaning that the bloodshed occurred even beyond the boundaries of Pales- 
tine. But the entire explanation, based upon the statement of Jerome, is 
hardly tenable, because, if John had wished, by means of a geographical desig- 
nation of length, to refer to the Iloly Land, the number must have been 
accurate. But this is not the case; for, as a Roman mile contained eight fur- 
longs,!° the one hundred and sixty Roman miles of Jerome would correspond 
to twelve hundred and eighty, but not to sixteen hundred stadia.!! It is 
highly probable, therefore, that the schematic number, which is intended 
to represent the vast extent of the stream of blood proceeding from the horns 
of the altar, has grown in a similar way from the number four, which refers to 
all four ends of the earth,!? to that in which, in vii. 4, xiv. 1, the number 
one hundred and forty-four thousand has been developed from the holy 
radical twelve. 

In the systematic connection of the entire Apocalyptic development, 
the vision (vv. 14-20) has the same relation to the express description of the 
actual final judgment (ch. xvii. sqq.), as the sixth seal-vision (vi. 12 566.) 
has already to the fulfilment of the mystery of God,!8 which does not occur 
until in the seventh seal. Both the sense and the expression 14 show that 
the judgment portrayed in ver. 14 sqq. is the final judgment itself; this is 
indicated also by the appearance on the cloud of one like the Son of man 


1 Zeger. large round number, by mentioning at the 
2 Cf. vii. 1. same time, that clusters of grapes appear, e.g., 
8 Hengstenb. on coins, as a symbol of the Holy Land. But 
4 Ebrard. he errs in finding a devastation of the Holy Land 


5 Marlorat., Vitr., etc. 

6 ‘Throughout all the four parts of the 
world.” 

1 Ep. ad Dard. Opp., T.IIL., p. 46. 

8 Cf. the ἐξ τ. πόλεως. 

® Grot. refers to the fact that Trajan put to 
death Jews in Syria, Egypt, etc. 

10 Cf. Winer, Rwbd., 11. 588. Stadium. 

11 Another circumstance is, that the length 
of the Holy Land is not sixteen hundred stadia, 
i.e., forty German miles, but, as Jerome cor- 
rectly says, scarcely one hundred and sixty 
Roman miles, i.e., thirty-two German miles. — 
Ew. ii., indeed, tries to find in the text only a 


here set forth, — while the subject has really to 
do with the inhabitants of the earth, whose 
place of execution, as in xx. 9, is outside the 
city, and, therefore, in the Holy Land, —and 
in urging the special reference of the ‘‘ cluster 
of grapes” to the Holy Land; and thereby in- 
jures the parallelism between the “ harvest,”’ 
ver. 15 sqq., and the ‘* wine harvest,” ver. 18 
sqq., which then affords only a more general 
significance. 

12 Cf, iv. 6. 

18 ΟΥ̓, x. 7. 

14 Ver. 16: ἐθερίσθη; 
ἔβαλεν; ver. 20: ἐπατηθη. 


ver. 19: ἐτρύγησε, 


404 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


(ver. 14), and therefore of the coming Judge himself, besides the special 
point in ver. 20 (ἔξ. τ. πολ.) comprised in the account of xx. 9. But, on the 
other hand, it. is to be observed that a complete account of the catastrophe 
is not yet given; in what way the various enemies (the secular power, the 
false prophet, even the dragon himself) are judged, is not at all described 
here; add to this, that the manifestation of the Judge (vv. 14-17) does not 
at all correspond with what is to be expected according to i. 7,1 and that 
immediately afterwards, in ver. 19 sqq., it is an angel, and not the Lord 
himself, who appears as executor of the vengeance. From all this, it is to 
be inferred that the vision (vv. 14-20)? brings, it is true, a preliminary 
representation of the final judgment, but, nevertheless, that the systematic 
_ introduction of the complete account is not disturbed; because of its pro- 
leptical character, the scheme of the prophetical development does not be- 
come apparent, and especially the actual end is not set before us in ver. 20, 
in the sense, as though by “ recapitulating” in some way with xv. 1,8 it were 
again retraced. 4— Vitr. interprets vv. 14-20 of the judgment of the false 
(i.e., the Papal) Church. 


NoTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LXXV. Ver. 4. οἱ μετὰ γυναικῶν, x.7.A. 


Any interpretation of this passage that teaches a superior holiness and 
blessedness as belonging to the unmarried estate, or attaches any defilement to 
marriage, is inconsistent with Heb. xiii. 4. See this passage defended from 
such view at some length by Chemnitz already (Examen Concilii Tridentini, 
Schlawitz ed., 1861, p. 535). Hence all such attempts at mediation between 
maintaining the sanctity of marriage and the peculiar sanctity of celibacy, like 
those of Alford and Luthardt, are ineffectual. ‘The former says: ‘‘ In them 
that fountain of carnal desire has never been opened, which is so apt to bea 
channel for unholy thoughts, and an access for the tempter.’? [Cf., however, 
1 Cor. vii. 2.7] ‘*‘ The virgins may thus have missed the victory over the lusts of 
the flesh; but they have also, in great part, escaped the conflict. We are, 
perhaps, more like that which the Lord intended us to be; but they are more 
like the Lord himself.’? Luthardt proposes another mode of mediation, by 
affirming that no special holiness of celibacy is taught, but that under the 
peculiar circumstances of the last times it would be the duty of Christians to 
remain unmarried, and marriage intercourse would then be only a yielding 
to sinful lusts. Gebhardt, on the contrary: ‘‘ They have, in the most marked 
contrast to the world, with its fornications, or idolatrous worship and service of 
sin, not defiled themselves with women; that is, in the strongest and fullest 
sense, they have not committed fornication, have not been unfaithful to God; 
they have not allowed themselves to be tempted by the world, and have not 
sinned, ‘for they are virgins;’ that is, what they are according to their nature 
as Christians, pure, holy, chaste, has, in their lives, simply perfected itself in 
gradual development, or, in the particular case, maintained itself. Certainly 


1 Cf. vi. 2, 12 sqq., xi. 15 sqq. 8 Cf. Introduction, p. 13 sq. 
2 Cf. also vv. 1-6. 4 Against Beda, etc. 


NOTES. . 405 


many expositors take the words just explained in a peculiar sense, and deter- 
mine the representation of the seer to be that perfect abstinence from sexuai 
intercourse belongs to the distinguished sanctity of the one hundred and forty- 
four thousand, and that, on this account, they enjoy peculiar blessedness; 
which, as Ko6stlin observes, is not merely in the spirit of the O. T., but is 
Esseno-Ebionitish. The one hundred and forty-four thousand are neither 
distinguished Christians, nor do they enjoy peculiar happiness; even on this 
supposition, it would be wholly inconceivable that the seer should have 
imagined one hundred and forty-four thousand unmarried Christians, and, 
according to the literal sense, Christians of the male sex; still less would he 
have regarded as Christians only those who had not been married... . I find 
that John has spoken of the idolatry and the sin of the world as fornication 
with sufficient frequency, and strength, and clearness, to enable us to see in it 
the true interpretation of this imagery. The true sense more decidedly presents 
itself if we begin, not with the first, but with the second member of the sen- 
tence, — ‘ they are virgins,’ — which is evidently symbolical.”’ 


LXXVI. Ver. 7. εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον, 


Alford says briefly on Diisterdieck’s interpretation: ‘‘I should have thought 
that such a rendering only needed mentioning to be repudiated. Ch. x. 7, which 
is adduced to justify it, is quite beside the purpose.’”’ Ebrard really anticipates 
every objection to the older interpretation here urged: ‘‘ The older exegetes, 
together with Lucke, are probably right when they understand the contents of 
the message in general as the message of the salvation in Christ. ‘An eternal 
message of joy’ that is, indeed, which the angel here brings; he brings a 
message which is eternal as to its contents, and, therefore, is eternal also, 
according to its announcement, as since the foundation of the world there has 
been no other message of joy and salvation, and in eternity there will be no 
other. That the definite article does not stand here, is owing to the fact that 
the message is to be described, as it appears to the ἔθνεσι, x.7.A., viz., as one new 
to them. The angel has ‘an eternal message of salvation to bring them.’”’ So 
also Gebhardt, who refers, besides, to the error of our author in conceiving of 
something being intended by this proclamation for the ungodly inhabitants of 
the earth, that is different from the real contents of the message. Gebhardt 
regards the angel only ‘‘an Apocalyptic art-device’’ to describe vividly ‘‘the 
publication of Christianity in ever-widening circles,’ which ‘‘is in reality 
accomplished by the apostles and other preachers,’’ and coinciding in meaning 
with Matt. xxiv. 14. Ἶ 


LXXVII. Ver. 13. an’ ἄρτι. 


The interpretation referred to is not peculiar to Calov. and the school of 
exegetes which he represents; e.g., Ebrard: ‘‘ ἀπ’ ἄρτι μακάριοι εἰσι says rather 
simply this (De Wette, etc.), that they who die in Christ need not wait for 
blessedness and compensation until, by the return of Christ to earth, an end is 
made to the power of the beast hostile to Christ, but, that, immediately after 
their deaths, they shall find the most glorious compensation by resting from 
their labors, and not losing the fruit of their works accompanying them. 
Nothing whatever is said concerning any merit of their works before God as 
Judge; for they are the regenerate ‘who die in the Lord,’ because they have 


406 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


lived in Him, and He in them.’”’ Hengstenberg: ‘‘The dead who die in the 
Lord are blessed from now on. This is not contrasted with any former time in 
which the dead who died in the Lord were not blessed. The blessedness is as 
old as the dying in the Lord, and this dates from the time of Christ’s death, 
who also already, for the intermediate state, has brought life to light (2 Tim. i. 
10), but with a remote future with respect to the completion of the kingdom of 
God; not first in the new Jerusalem that is hereafter to be established on the 
renewed earth, but already from the moment of their departure into heaven. 
This is explained by the conversation between Christ and the penitent thief. 
The latter prayed the Lord to remember him when he came into his kingdom at 
the establishment of the kingdom of glory on earth. But the Lord assured him 
of more than that for which he prayed (Luke xxiii. 48). By saying, ‘ Lord, 
remember me,’ the thief shows that he is one who is dying in the Lord. For 
to die in the Lord, is when one, in the face of death, with complete confidence 
confesses Him to be Lord.’’ Luthardt: ‘‘ It was expressly revealed to John, in 
order that Christians of all times may know that from now on, i.e., now already, 
blessed are they who die in the Lord, i.e., in fellowship with him, for with their 
death they enter into a blessed state; in order, also, that they may be consoled 
in that they die before the second coming of Christ. . . . This toilsome life is 
now at an end, and a blessed peaceful rest in the bosom of Christ follows, while 
the unblessed have no rest day or night (ver. 11).”’ 

Observe the force of the ἐκ τῶν κοπῶν, as in note on ch. ii. 2. The promise 
ἀναπαήσονται belongs here only where there have been previously κόποι, viz., 
toilsome exhaustive labors, not for self, but for the Lord. 


CHAP. XV. | 407 | 


CHAPTER XV. 


Ver. 2. τοὺς νικῶντας. So here (cf., on the other hand, ii. 7) Lach., Tisch. 
1854 and IX. [W. and H.], in accordance with A, C, δὰ, Elz. Tisch. 1859 has 
vixovvt. adopted from C. The addition derived from xiii. 17, ἐκ τοῦ χαράγματος 
αὐτοῦ before ἐν τ. ἀριθμ. (Elz.), is certainly false. — Ver. 3. τῶν ἐθνῶν. So A, B, 
2, 4, 6, al., Compl., Plant., Genev., Beng., Lach., Tisch. The variation τ. αἰώνων 
(cf. 1 Tim. i. 17) occurs in C, &,, 18, Vulg. (var.: caelorum) [adopted by W. and 
H.]. The rec. τ, ἁγίων is almost without any testimony. — Ver. 4. The oe after 
908, (Elz., Beng.) is to be erased according to A, B, C (Lach., Tisch. [W. and 
H.]). δὰ has it after ric. The same testimonies require δοξάσει, instead of δοξάσῃ 
(N, Elz.).— Ver. 6. λεθον. So A, Ὁ, Vulg., Ambrose, Beda, Andr., al., Lach. 
|W. and H.] The rec. λίνον (Tisch.) seems to be a modification which occurs 
already in Β (δὲ : καθ. Acvovc). — Ver. 8. καπνοῦ. B indeed has ἐκ τοῦ x, (Tisch.), 
and the omission of ἐκ τοὺ was readily suggested; yet the mere καπνοῦ by itself 
(Elz., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]) is attested by A, C, 8, al. 


In a new vision (ver. 1: καὶ eid, ἄλλο onu.) 1 seven angels are represented, 
who are to bring the last plagues determined by the wrath of God. After 
they who stand, as victors over the beast,? at God’s throne, have celebrated 
the wonderful and righteous works and judgments of God, whose end is now 
to be introduced by the seven angels (vv. 2-4), these angels, coming into 
heaven from the opened temple, receive from one of the four beings (iv. 6 
sqq.) seven vials full of the wrath of God, whose pouring-forth is then 
described in ch. xvi. 

Ver. 1. ἄλλο onu. The manifestations in ch. xiv., with which the present 
angelic manifestation is contrasted as an ἄλλο onu., were also apocalyptic 
signs. —péya καὶ θαυμαστόν. The greatness (xii. 1) and marvellousness lies 
not only in the fact that seven angels — not archangels ?— appear at once, 
but also in their peculiar equipage: ἔχοντας πληγὰς ἑπτά. Manifestly John 
wishes, by this expression,* to say more than that they had a sign (“signatur’’) 
of the plagues to be brought by them, as that possibly their eyes shone like 
flames of fire;® the-idea is, that they who have the ἐξουσια to bring the 
plagues described in ch. xvi.§ have and hold these plagues themselves. In 
what way this is to be understood, is not said ; it belongs to the θαυμαστόν of 
this vision. But it is worthy of notice with what beautiful, artistic trans- 
parency the declaration of the actual ordination of these plagues is com- 
municated, in that (ver. 5 sqq.) the seven angels, who are described again 


2 Cfo xii. 1. * Ci xvii; 6, ὙΠ ιν 2. 
2 Ch. xiii. 5 Hengstenb. 
3 Ziill., Stern; cf. also De Wette, 6 Cf. xvi. 9, 21: ἡ πληγή- 


408 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


also in ver. 6 as of ἔχοντες τ. ἑπτὰ mAny., receive special vials, through the 
pouring-out of which the plagues can first be brought to plastic represen- 
tation. — From ver. 5, where the ναός in heaven is opened, and then the 
seven angels proceed therefrom, Ziill., De Wette, Ebrard, etc., correctly 
infer that in ver. 1 a point cannot be designated lying within the vision 
actually before ver. 5, as though John in ver. 1 had only first beheld the 
seven angels themselves, but in ver. 5 their coming forth from the ναός, ete. ; 
rather in ver. 1, the chief subject of the entire vision extending to xvi. 21, 
yea in a certain way embracing the entire final development,} is first given 
preliminarily, while the more detailed account as to how the seven angels 
actually come forth foliows then (ver. 5) after the heavenly hymn, vv. 2-4, 
—during which the angels are to be regarded as in the still closed ναός, ---- 
has praised beforehand the righteousness of the judgment to be executed by 
them; and then they themselves are certainly equipped for (ver. 7) their 
work, and directed (xvi. 1) to fulfil their calling. Cf. xii. 6 in its relation 
to xii. 13 866. --- τὰς ἐσχάτας. Not “the last in this way,”? nor the last 
which a certain portion of the enemies has to endure,’ but for the reason: 
ὅτι ἐν αὐταὶς ἐτελέσθη ὁ θυμὸς τοῦ θεοῦ This is misunderstood, however, by 
Hengstenb., who concludes that with vi. 21, where the seven plagues are at 
an end, the entire final judgment has been recounted, — as should have been 
the case also in xi. 19 and several times before, — and that then, with xvii. 1, 
a repetition of that final judgment occurs which renders prominent new 
sides. Yet not only the very number indicates a meaning analogous to that 
of the seven last plagues, as the plagues described in the seal- and trumpet- 
visions, which do not contain the final judgment itself, but have only intro- 
duced that immediately before which belongs in the seventh trumpet,’ and 
consequently in the seventh seal;® but, in the sense of the Apoc., the judg- 
ment cannot occur at all under the conception of a plague, since, according 
to the description in ch. xvii. sqq., the judgment extends infinitely far over 
what is contained up to xvi. 21. The plagues described also in ch. xvi.,’ 
not without a reference to those of Egypt,§ have in themselves something 
preparatory to which the final action corresponds. As by the trumpet- 
plague the dwellers on earth are not brought to repentance,® so also neither 
are they by the vial-plagues.!° The more certain and immediate, therefore, 
is the actual final judgment, whose description then also immediately fol- 
lows that of the last plagues,1! and to which, therefore, we are directed in the 
midst of the plagues as to something immediately impending.’? The result 
of this is that the fulfilment of the wrath of God (ἐτελέσθη)"}8 is to be understood 
only relatively; viz.,in so far as it is manifested in the “plagues.” No 
more plagues will come after the vial-plagues; but then the Lord himself 
will come to administer his final judgment. 


1 Cf. xvii. 1, xxi. 9. 6 vi. 17, vii. 1, viii. 1. 
2 Ὁ. a Lap. 7 Cf. chs. vi., viii., ix. 
3 Beng.: ‘‘ After the fulfilment of the seven 8 Cf. also ver. 2 sqq. 
plagues, the holy wrath of God, therefore, 9 ix. 20 sqq. 
against other enemies does not cease.” 10 xvi. 21. 
4 So too, with formal correctness, Beng. 11 xvii. 1 sqq. 


Bax. 12 xvi. 1d. 13 Cf. x. 7. 


CHAP. XV. 2-4. 409 


Vv. 2-4. Before the beginning of the last plagues, immediately preceding 
the end itself, yea before the opening of the heavenly νάος (ver. 5), and 
accordingly even before the actual coming-forth of the seven angels,! a 
song is heard in heaven which proclaims the righteousness of the ways of 
God, now near their ultimate goal as worthy of adoration,? and whose sense 
declares that they who, standing by the sea of glass, raise this song of praise, 
are the victors over the beast. — ὡς θάλασσαν ὑαλίνην μεμιγμένην πυρί. Ebrard 
is wrong in understanding here a different sea of glass from that in iv. 6; 
for the article missed by Ebrard must be lacking, because by the expression 
ὡς θαλ. ὑαλ., just as in iv. 6, it is chiefly to be indicated that not an actual 
sea of glass, but only something like a sea of glass, is designated. It is not 
until at the close of ver. 2, that, since by the first accurate expression recall- 
ing iv. 6, ὡς θάλ. ὑαλ., an end is placed to all misunderstanding, it is expressly 
said, with a certain want of precision, ἐπὶ τὴν 641. τὴν baa. That the addition 
μεμιγμένην πυρί cannot be referred here to any thing else than in iv. 6, follows 
likewise from the close of ver. 2, which shows that the essential designation 
of what is meant lies in the words θαλ. ὑαλιν., while the μεμιγμ. πυρί expresses 
a more special, although in this place a significant, side-reference. Because 
of the addition μεμιγμ. πυρί, the false interpretations of ὡς θάλ. ὑαλῖν., iv. 6, 
appear here in new applications. Grot. understands here “the mass of Gen- 
tile Christians inflamed with love to God;” Coccejus, “the peace of the 
world, and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the world;” Calov., who 
refers the θάλ. to baptism, and the rip to God’s wrath, interprets: “That 
grace will not be denied to penitents in the midst of the flames of Divine | 
wrath;” Vitr. explains that the victors stand upon the firm ground of 
the truth illumined by the fire of Divine righteousness; the allusion to 
the lightning, iv. 5, Eichh. and De Wette interpret as meaning the atmos- 
phere; Ziill. and Ewald, the floor of heaven; while De Wette, Hengstenb., 
Ebrard, Stern,? maintain a reference to the Red Sea, at which the children 
of Israel sang their song of praise. But it is just this passage ‘4 which, 
because of its other contents, is adapted for furnishing the correct interpre- 
tation also for iv. 6. That which is like “a sea of glass,” by which® the 
victors stand, designates, like the river of life,® the eternal fulness of joy in 
God’s presence, with which the victors will be rewarded. But if, in this 
passage; the sea appears also as “mingled with fire,” thereby the unity of 
God’s saving grace and judging righteousness is designated in like manner, 
as already in the fundamental description of the glory of God, iv. 3 sqq.,’ 
both points are harmoniously § presented, and, as in general in prophecy con- 
cerning the end, both parts of the subject belong together. — τοὺς νικῶντας. 


1 Cf. ver. 1. 

2 Cf. xi. 15 sqq.; also iv. 8, v. 8 sqq. 

3 Who recognizes in the θαλ. vad. μεμ. πυρ. 
a symbol of the antichristian persecution. 

“Cio xxii. 1. 

5 Beng., De Wette, etc. Cf. iii. 20, viii. 3. 
The explanation of the ἐπί by super, which is 
in itself unnatural, and does not harmonize 


with the scenery of iv. 6, coheres with the false 
allegorizing in Vitr., ete. 

6 xxii. 1 sqq. 

7 Cf. especially iv. 5. 

8 Out of harmony, and in violation of taste, 
Ew. thinks that by the mingling of sea and 
fire “δὴ indescribable boiling foam, a fire- 
broth,” originated. 


410 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


The pres. part.1 designates the idea without regard to time.?— ἐκ r. θηρ. 
Winer, p. 845. On the subject, cf. xiii. 7, 15 sqq , xiv. 13. —éy. κιθάρας τοῦ 
θεοῦ. Cf. v. 8, xiv. 2,1 Chron. xvi. 42. The “harps of God” are such as 
serve only for the praise of God.?— The song is characterized as: τὴν ὠδὴν 
Μωῦσέως τοὺ δούλου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν δὴν τοῦ dpviov. It is not two songs that are 
designated ; 9 also no allusion whatever is made to the connection between 
prophecy and the gospel; ὅ altogether false is every explanation that does 
not acknowledge that the song immediately following, introduced by the 
λέγοντες, is at the same time both the song of Moses® and the song of the 
Lamb. But this does not mean the song wherein these former idol- 
worshippers declare their conversion to Moses and Jesus, or rather to “the 
God of these,” 7 nor the song of Moses 8 applied to Christ and the things of 
Christ ;? but the song which #s composed alike by Moses and the Lamb, and 
is taught to the victors.!° By this the same view is significantly expressed, 
which appears in another way also in x. 7, vii. 9 sqq., in combination with 
vii. 4 sqq. and xiv. 1; viz.,!! that the essential unity of the O. and the N. T. 
Church, which collects its victorious members from Jews and Gentiles, 
is attested and represented in the most definite manner, —a view which is 
absolutely incompatible with the Judaism charged against the Apoc. by 
Baur, Volkm., etc. [See Note LXXVIII., p. 413.] The song has the 
O. T. psalm tone, as what is in clear accord with the O. T. manifests itself 
everywhere in the details.1* In a more definite form the character of a song 
of the Lamb is not distinctly expressed; but in fact it is also such, because 
the δικαιώματα of God serve for the glory of the Lamb. — Μεγάλα καὶ θαυμαστὰ, 
«.t.A, Cf. Ps. exi. 2, cxxxix. 14; 1 Chron. xvi. 9. --- κύριε ---- παντοκράτωρ. 
iv. 8, xi. 17. Cf. 1. 8. --- δίκαιαι καὶ ἀληθιναὶ ai 66. 0. Ps. exlv. 17; Deut. xxxii. 
Jer. x. 7. From this passage originate also the 
following words,!4 and just in this way is the ascription of praise especially 
appropriate, because treating of the judgments on the Gentile world, which 
gives divine honor to the beast.15 — ὅτι, «.7.4. Of the three clauses introduced 
by the ὅτι, the first two are co-ordinated with each other, since the former in 
its way gives the basis for the interrogatory τίς ---- τὸ ὄνομά σου, and the last 
words ὅτι τὰ δικαιώμ. o. ἐφαν. that for the immediately preceding clause ὅτι 
πώντα, &7.A.—pdvog ὅσιος. The variation ἅγιος arises from the classical lin- 
guistic prejudice, according to which the predicate ὅσιος, which in the N. T. 
is said only (xvi. 5) of God, is applied to godly men.1®— Although the words 


4.18__ § βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν. 


1 Incorrectly, Eichh. : νενικηκότας, 

ΛΕ: Xiv.d3, il. ¥, 11, 1%. 

3 Beng., etc. 

4 Against Andr., who refers the one to the 
O. T. saints, and other to the N. T. believers. 

5 Coccejus. 

6 Concerning whose formal designation as 
τ. δούλ, τ. θ., cf. Exod. xiv. 31; Num. xii. 7; 
Jos. xiv. 7, xxii. 5. The LXX. do not have 
here the word δοῦλος. 

7 Ziill. 

9 Grot.; cf. Calov., 

Hengstenb., Ebrard. 


8 Exod. xv. 
Vitr., De Wette, 


10 Cf. xiv.3. Ew. 

11 Cf. also xii. 1, 17. 

12 Of. Ziill., De Wette. 

18 LXX.: ἀληθινά for ὉΠ. Cf., on the 
other hand, Rev. iii. 14. 

14 Only that ce after of. does not belong to 
the correct text. 

16 Cf. xiii. 4. 

16 Cf. Schol. on Eurip., Hecub. 788: τὸ mpoo 
θεοὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον δίκαιον ὅσιον 
καλοῦμεν [** We call one among men who is 
just with respect to the gods, ὅσιον ᾽- 


CHAP. XV. 5-8. 411 


ὅτι μόνος ὅσιος present the alone holiness of God simply as the ground because 
of which every one must fear him, and the name of God be praised by every 
one, the fundamental reference to the succeeding words is not so readily 
afforded. The interposition of the first clause ὅτι μόν. ὅσ. modifies in a cer- 
tain degree the inner connection, in the sense that the words ὅτι πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, 
κιτιλ., Which express the sum of the O. T. prophecies concerning the conver- 
sion of the Gentiles — and that, too, in its universality, so that the question 
is not that in fact only a certain number of the heathen are converted — give 
the foundation for the thought of the question, τίς ob μὴ ¢08., «.7.A.: “ Thee, 
who art the King of the nations, every one must and certainly shall fear, for 
all the nations shall adore Thee as their King.” — ὅτι τὰ δικαιώματά σου ἐφανερώ- 
θησαν. For, from the works and judgments which the righteousness of God 
has executed, and in which he has been revealed as the βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν, the 
nations shall learn to know his adorable name.? 

Vy. 5-8. After the introductory song καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα (ver. 5),2 the seven 
angels which hold the seven plagues come out of the heavenly temple, and 
receive seven vials full of the wrath of God. —6 ναὸς τῆς σκηνῆς tod μαρτυρίου ἐν 
τ. ovp. Cf. xi. 19. It is not the holy of holies ὃ that is designated by the entire 
expression, but the proper temple? in heaven, which is more accurately 
described by the addition of the gen. τῆς ox. τ. uapr.,° as the ναός belonging 
to the tabernacle of the testimony, i.e., including 10,9 ---- not as existing in 
the σκην. τ. wapt.1 — The heavenly δόξα of the seven angels is to be seen from 
their adornment; one attribute, the golden girdle, they have in common even 
with the Lord himself.§ The first expression évded. λίθον καθαρὸν λαμπρὸν, in 
which, considering the manuscript authority for it, the λίθον can scarcely be 
a clerical error,® is by no means to be so explained as to refer to Christ him- 
self, the corner-stone 10 or the “ various adornments of virtues,” 1} as the cloth- 
ing of the angel; if, however, only a comparison with Ezek. xxviii. 13 (πᾶν 
λίθον χρῆστον ἐνδέδεσαι) give an explanation that is at all events satisfactory, a 
plural, nevertheless, would possibly be expected, as πὰν 29. stands in Ezekiel. 
The idea must, then, be that each angel wears a garment set with a pure, 
brilliant gem. The later expositors all follow the reading λίνον, according 
to which the angels appear in sacerdotal garments.!2 Hengstenb. compares 
this with xix. 8, where, however, the expression λίνον does not occur. Ew. 
ii. refers properly to the-fact that the καθαρόν does not appear to require the 
idea of a garment. But the weight of the witnesses who advocate the read- 
ing which is more difficult, and yet not to be derived from Ezekiel,}* is too 
great. x also appears by its peculiarities to betray with what difficulty 
the attempt was made to explain away the difficult-to-be-understood λίθον.13 
— That one of the four beings (iv. 6) gives 15 to the angels the vials of wrath, 


1 Exod. ix. 16, xiv. 17 sq.; Ps. ὍΣ Στ. 2; 7 De Wette. 8 Cf. i. 13. 
Mic. vii. 16 sqq. 9 Grot. 

2 See on ver. 1. 101 Pet. ii. 26. 

3 Grot., etc. 11 Andr., Beda. 

“Οἱ, χὶ» 1. 12 De Wette. 

5 Cf., on this designation, Acts viii. 44: - 13 Volkm. 
Exod. xxix. 10, 11, LXX. 14 See Critical Notes. 


6 Ewald. 18. Οὐ, vi. 1. 8, ὅ, 7. 


412 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

is significant, because it has to do with plagues which pertain to all earthly 
creatures whose representatives those beings are.! As in their song of 
praise in iv. 7, they looked towards the end, so also the end does not come 
without their participation.? — τοῦ ζῶντος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. The mak- 
ing eternity conspicuous has the same relation as already in i. 8.— kai ἐγεμίσθη, 
κιτιλ., ver. 8. The smoke with which the temple is filled,’ is not the sign of 
the incomprehensibility of the Divine judgments,‘ nor directly of the wrath 
of God;® but, as the text itself explains, that the smoke is represented as 
proceeding from the glory and power of God (ἐκ 6. τ. 6. καὶ ἐκ τ. δυν. abt.), as a 
sign of the majesty, actually present in the ναός, of God revealing himself 
immediately in his power. In the cloud of smoke there the “7 “22 is 
enthroned, which now, as the addition κ. ἐκ τ. δυνάμεως abt. especially empha- 
sizes, will be manifested on the side of its omnipotence. The subject, it is 
true, refers to a revelation of judgment upon enemies, that is full of grace to 
believers; but the interpretation of the smoke fails to be in accordance with 
the text, if this be regarded as, on that account, either a sign of Divine wrath, 
or even of God’s grace working for the good of the godly.7_ Beng. says, cor- 
rectly, concerning the καπν. : “ The covering of Divine Majesty.” §— καὶ οὐδεις 
ἐδύνατο εἰσελθεῖν, x.7.A. The description depends upon types like Exod. xl. 34; 
1 Kings viii. 10 sq.® Incorrect are all the allegorical explanations which 
depend upon the presumption that the heavenly ναός represents the Church 
on earth.!° Just as incorrect, and entirely remote, Grot.: “God was not 
willing to give any other oracles but these.” Nothing whatever is said, 
also, to the purport that no one could go into the temple, in order by prayer 
to avert the threatening judgments. The correct explanation is derived 
from the words ἄγρι τελεσθ., «.7.A., Which, upon the foundation of the general 
idea of the inaccessibility of God as present in his personal δόξα,12 suggests 
that not until satisfaction shall be rendered his holy wrath, by the full execu- 
tion of all the plagues impending from God’s justice, shall access to him be 
possible. Until then, the immediate presence of his glory and power (ver. 8a) 
must consume all creatures.}8 


1 Hengstenb. But cf. also Riehm, I. c., 
p. 24. 
2 Cf. also xix. 4. 


preachers.”? Coccejus: ‘* Papal human ordi- 
nances hinder the faith of the most.” Vitr.: 


3 Cf. Isa. vi. 4. “Τὴ the time of the plagues... there shall be 


4 C. a Lap., ete. 

5 Andr., Grot., Heinr., Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

6 Exod. xl. 34. LXX.: δόξα κυρίου. 

7 Ziillig, Hengstenb. 

8 Cf. also De Wette. 

9 De Wette, Hengstenb. 

10 Beda: ‘* Noonecan be incorporated among 
the members of the Church unless one who 
listening learns the mysteries of faith from 


such a demonstration of the glorious and gra- 
cious presence of God in the Church, as can be 
compared with the symbolical demonstration 
of the Divine presence in the tabernacle under 
the old covenant.” 

11 Ewald, Stern. 

12 Cf. Exod. xix. 21; Isa. vi. 5. 

18 Cf. Hengstenb.; likewise also Ziillig, De 
Wette. 


NOTES. 413 


NoTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LXXVIII. Ver. 8. τὴν ὠόδὴν Μωυσέως, x.7.A. 


So Alford: “1ὖὺ betokens the unity of the Ο. and N. T. Churches. Their 
songs of triumph have become ours; the song of Moses is the song of the 
Lamb. In this great victory all the triumphs of God’s people are included, and 
find their fulfilment.’’ Gebhardt (p. 255): ‘‘ That is, Christians above, after 
they have overcome all the temptations of antichrist, look upon the holy and 
righteous judgments of God, or his works and ways with the world, as once 
Israel looked upon the plagues of Egypt and the Red Sea, —indeed, in these 
visions, the Egyptian plagues frequently furnish the type, — they sing the song 
of the deliverance of their persons, the song of salvation, as the children of 
Israel once sung it (Exod. xv.), in its Christian fulfilment. Christian salvation 
is essentially that of the O. T., the completion once prepared, but now begun.’’ 
J. Gerhard (Z. T., xviii. 17): ‘‘ Because the Church triumphant consists of 
saints of the O. and the N. T.; and just as the Israelites, after their deliverance 
from Pharaonic bondage, praised God in the song of Moses (Exod. xv.), so 
the blessed, after their deliverance from the tyranny of persecutors, and all the 
adversities of this life, praise God in the song of the Lamb, or Christ.” 


414 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


CHAPTER XVI. 


Ver. 1. ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ. Although omitted, possibly because of its seeming 
contradiction to xv. 8, in many documents and editions (even by Tisch. 1854 
and IX.), it is guaranteed by A, C, δὲ, al., and is entirely suitable. — Ver. 2. 
Instead of ἐπὶ τ. y. (Elz., Beng.), read εἰς τ. y. in accordance with A, B, C 
(Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]; cf., already, Griesb.). But, according to the same 
witnesses and κα, read ἐπὶ τ. avép. (Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), instead of 
εἰς τ. ἀ, (Elz.).— Ver. 8. ψυχὴ ζωῆς ἀπέθ., τὰ ἐν τ, θαλ. So also A, C, Lach., 
Tisch. [W. and H.]. The rec. ψυχ. ζῶσα ἀπέθ. ἐν τ. θαλ. (N: ἐπὶ τ. θ.) makes the 
text θδϑίϑι. - Ver. 5. ὅσιος. So A, B, C, Lach., Tisch. The rec. has interpo- 
lated καὶ ὁ, δὰ has the art. without the «ai (Tisch. 1X.).— Ver. 7. The inter- 
pretation ἄλλου ἐκ before tov θυσιαστ. (Elz.) is rejected already by Beng., Griesb., 
in accordance with decisive testimonies. — Ver. 14. The ἃ before ἐκπορεύεται 
(Elz., Tisch.) is satisfactorily maintained by A, B. Lach. has deleted it upon 
the authority of the Vulg. δὲ; has the inf. indorsed by Ew. ii.; it is corrected: 
ἐκπορεύεται, without ἃ, --α Ver. 17. The ἀπὸ before τοῦ ναοῦ (B, Elz., Tisch.) is to 
be preferred to the ἐκ (A, Beng., Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), because the 
latter appears to be written in order to mark the ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ in distinction from 
the ἀπὸ tov θρόνου. & has only ἐκ τ, ναοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. --- Ver. 18, ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο. 
So A, 38, Lach., Tisch. Elz. (Beng., Griesb. [W. and H.]), with B, verss., inter- 
pret: οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐγένοντο, 


At the command of a voice sounding forth from the heavenly temple, 
the seven angels pour forth their vials upon the earth; yet the plagues 
caused thereby not only work no repentance in the inhabitants of the earth 
worshipping the beast, but have rather the effect of leading them to the 
open blasphemy of God who has sent these plagues.1_ The more certainly, 
therefore, must these hardened men incur the now immediately impending 
final judgment, to which ver. 15 also expressly alludes. 

All seven vials are poured forth successively, without interruption; for 
such does not occur either at vv. 5-7, or at ver. 7. This, as well as the 
circumstance also that the number seven of the vials appears to be resolved 
neither into three and four, as the epistles,? nor into four and three, as the 
seals and trumpets,’ nor even into five and two,*—for the separation so 
prominent in the former series of visions, which could be found here with 
equal right in ver. 5 sqq., vv., 9, 11, 15, nevertheless dare be exclusively 
sought in none of these passages, —corresponds to the haste with which now 
the end itself, before which these last plagues (xv. 1) still lie, draws on. 


1 Vy. 9, 11, 21. 2 Cf. p. 145. 
3 Cf. pp. 256, 315sq. Soin this passage, Beng., Eichh., Ewald, Ziillig. 
« Cf. De Wette. 


CHAP. XVI. 1, 2. 415 


That the vials have their place so directly before the actual end, is expressed 
also by the fact that the plagues proceeding therefrom are limited no longer 
to the third of the earth and its inhabitants, — as was the case in the trum- 
pet-plagues, which, however, were already still more violent than the seal- 
plagues pertaining only to a fourth, — but they are inflicted upon the entire 
number of the inhabitants of the earth worshipping the beast (vv. 2, 8 sqq.), 
and all the sea, together with all that lives therein. The special parallel- 
izing of the vials with the trumpets, which occurs in the sense of the 
recapitulation theory,! divides the progress, so clearly occurring and always 
accelerated, of the development which presses with great intensity to the 
catastrophe. Already the first vial has in its effect no analogy whatever 
with the first trumpet, so that the text of itself presents an obstacle to 
arbitrary parallelizing. The analogies which occur between vials 2, 3, and 
trumpets 2, 3, vial 6 and trumpet 6, vial 7 and seal 6, give no basis whatever 
for the recapitulation-parallelism, partly because the other numbers of the 
vials, trumpets (and seals) do not agree, partly because the seeming parallels 
are essentially distinguished from one another also in individual points ;? 
partly, also, because a certain repetition of particular means of plague, 
which, however, forms also a gradation of the same, was indeed unavoid- 
able, since, for a thrice-repeated sevenfold series of visions, the sphere 
whence the prophetic contemplation of the plagues must be developed could 
not always offer new forms,—and such plagues particularly must appear 
to be repeated, as presented themselves after the type of the Egyptian 
plagues to the contemplating mind of John. 

Ver. 1. μεγάλης φωνῆς ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ. According to xv. 8, the voice sounding 
from the heavenly temple can belong only to God himself. This is not 
expressed, because John with all fidelity limits himself to that which he 
recognized, and as he actually recognizes 10. --- πάγετε. Cf. the ἀπῆλθεν, 
ver. 2, which is understood of itself in ver. 3, ete. The angels have possibly 
held themselves in readiness, standing at the gate of the temple (xv. 5 sqq.); 
now they come to a place in heaven, whence they can pour forth the destruc- 
tive contents of their vials. —r, ἑπτὰ φιάλας τοῦ θυμοὺ r. 9. Ci. xv. 7. Tar- 
gum, Isa. ]xi. 22: “The vials of the cup of my wrath.” 4— εἰς τὴν γὴν. ΑΒ 
viii. 5. 

Ver. 2. The first vial poured forth upon the earth (εἰς τὴν γῆν, in relation 
to ver. 1, as viii. 7 to viii. 5) produces a severe ulcer. — ἔλκος κακὸν καὶ πονηρόν. 
Cf. Exod. ix. 10 sqq.; Deut. xxviii. 35.5 The πονηρόν ὃ designates, besides the 
κακὸν, Which expresses only the evil nature, the virulence, malignity, and 
affliction of the ulcer.?— ἐπὶ τοὺς avép., x.7.A. The accus. after ἐπί results 8 
from the idea that the plague extends to the men.?—r, ἔχ. τὸ χάραγμα, «.7.A. 
Cf. xiii. 15 sqq., xiv. 9 sqq. Of such a pestilence as there was at Rome?® in 
Nero’s time, nothing is said. 


1 Cf. Introduction, p. 13 sq. 6 Suidas: ἐπίπονον. 

2 Cf., e.g., vial 6 with trumpet 6. 7 Cf. my commentary on 1 John iii. 12. 
3 Beng., Ziill., Hengstenb. 8 Cf. Luke i. 65, iii. 2. De Wette. 

* In Wetst. 9 Cf. Winer, p. 330. 


5 LXX.: ἕλκος πονηρόν. So also Job ii. 7. 10 Volkm. 


416 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

Ver: 3. The second vial changes the great sea into blood, as that of a 
dead man, so that every thing living therein dies. — καὶ ἐγένετο αἷμα ὡς νεκροῦ. 
According to the analogy of viii. 8, 11, ἡ θάλασσα is to be regarded as the 
subject to éyévero.1 The advance of the present plague, in comparison with 
viii. 8, lies not only in that now the entire sea is changed into blood, and. 
that every thing living therein dies, but also in that the sea becomes “as the 
blood of a dead man,” i.e., not a great pool of blood, as of many slain,? 
but the horribleness of the fact is augmented in that the sea seems like the 
clotted and already putrefying blood of a dead man.*— ψυχὴ ζωῆς. The var. 
correctly give the meaning: ψ. ζῶσα. The expression originates from Gen. 
Cf. on the gen. limitation ζωῆς, Winer, p. 
177 sq. — The ra before ἐν τ. θαλ.ὅ refers, as to meaning, to the individual 
κτίσματα comprised in the collective πᾶσα wvy.® 

Vv. 4-7. The third vial changes all other streams into blood. The 
angel of the waters and the heavenly altar praises the righteousness of God’s 
judgments. — καὶ ἐγένετο aiua. “ And it became blood,” i.e., blood came forth. 
It is true, indeed, that, as to the form of the expression, it is not said that 
the streams became blood; the reading is not ἐγένοντο. But the analogy 
with viii. 117 suggests that the blood entered into the streams into which 
the vials were poured.’ — Since the streams are thus affected by the plague, 
the angel who presides over the waters is the first to recognize adoringly the 
righteousness of this Divine manifestation of wrath. — τοὺ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων. 
Incorrectly, Grotius: “Because he emptied the vial into the waters.” A 
definite angel is meant, who is placed over the streams as a special sphere.® 
There is an analogy not so much in what is presented in vii. 1 and xiv. 18, 
— for what is said there of the angels of wind and fire 19 is not meant in the 
same sense, — as rather in the idea of the four beings who appear in iv. 6 sqq. 
as representatives of earthly creatures.11_ Precisely similar 12 is Daniel’s rep- 
resentation of angelic princes who belong to particular nations.18 Cf. also 
Schottgen, Hor. Hebr., on this passage; and Eisenmenger, Enid. Judenth., ii. 
377 sq., where a large number of rabbinical expressions concerning earth-, 
sea-, fire-, and other angels, and their special names, are collected. In Bava 
Bathra, p. 72, 2,14 the prince of the sea is called any, after Job xxvi. 12; in 
another book,}5 he is called Michael, and seven less important angels stand 


1. 30: ὃ ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ ψυγὴν ζωῆς. 


beneath him. — ὅσιος. 


1 Beng., etc. 
Blut. 

2 νεκροῦ = νεκρῶν. C. a Lap., Eichh., De 
-‘Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 

8 Beng., Ziill., etc. 

4 Cf. viii. 9: κτίσματα τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχάς. 

5 See Critical Notes. 

δ Cf.v. 13. 

7 Cf. also ver. 3. 

8 Against De Wette. 

9 Andr., C. a Lap., Ewald, Ziill., Ce Wette, 
Hengstenb. 

10 De Wette. 

11 Cf. also viii. 2, where seven angels of spe- 
cial rank are mentioned. 


Against De Wette: es estand 


Cf. xv. 4. As the solemn formula ὁ ὧν καὶ ὁ ἣν 15 does 


12 Hengstenb. compares John v.4. Although 
he considers the water in this passage, as also 
viii. 10, as an allegorical designation of pros- 
perity ; although, further, the passage John v. 
4 is spurious, and nothing whatever is said of 
an angel placed over the water in general, but 
only of one sent for a particular service to a 
single pool, — yet he would have us find here 
ἐᾷ delicate and inner bond” between the 
Apoce. and the Gospel. 

13 Dan. x. 18, 21, xii. 1. 

15 Hisenmenger, p. 379. 

16 The καὶ 6 ἐρχόμενος is absent here, as in 
xi. 17, because the coming to judgment is al- 
ready in process of execution. 


14 Schottg. 


CHAP. XVI. 8, 9. 417 
not allow an immediate combination with dcioc,! and as before ὅσιος, neither 
ὁ, nor καὶ, nor καὶ ὁ, dare be read,? and consequently the translation of Heng- 
stenb. (“the godly” ) is false, we can only, in the sense adopted by Luther, 
who, however, interpolates an “and,” regard the ὅσιος as placed with δίκαιος 
by asyndeton, as a predicate belonging to εἰ: “ Righteous art thou, which 
art, and which wast, holy” [art thou], “because thou hast ordained such 
judgments:” ὅτι ταῦτα xp. The ταῦτα refers to ver. 4, not to ver. 3; for that 
which is the subject of treatment (ver. 6) is drinking-water that is changed 
into blood, so that the inhabitants of the earth who have shed the blood of 
saints and prophets® must drink blood.* The closing words of the angelic 
discourse, ἄξιοι εἰσιν, whose force is not destroyed by the absence of a connective, 
expressly designate that the enemies have merited this judgment. — Upon 
the angel’s ascription of praise, there follows yet, in ver. 7, another from the 
side of the altar, which, responding to the former and confirming it (Nai, 
x.7.4.), makes a further reference in general to the judgments of God, and 
thus brings the entire ascription of praise from ver. 5 to a conclusion.’ — 
τοὺ θυσιαστηρίου λέγοντος. An attempt has been made to evade the idea of the 
text that the words of praise proceed from the altar itself, by the inter- 
polation of ἄλλου (sc. ayyéAov), ἐκ before θυσ.,5 or by allegorizing,’ or by the 
supply of a personality. But De Wette correctly acknowledges 9 the signifi- 
cant personification of the altar itself. This is in some measure prepared for 
already by ix. 13; but the idea embodied therein is to be recognized from 
vi. 10 sqq., vill. 3, ix. 18, xiv. 18. From the same place whence the prayers 
for vengeance had arisen, and already special manifestations of God’s wrath 
had proceeded, the righteousness of all the judgments of God, whereby the 
longing of the saints is fully satisfied, is proclaimed. 

Vv. 8,9. The fourth vial, poured out upon the sun, produces 19 terrific 
heat. Men, however, are not brought by all these plagues to repentance, 
but only to blasphemy of God. — ἐδόθη αὐτῷ; viz., to the sun, not to the 
angel;!* the meaning is that by the pouring-forth of the vials upon the 
sun, this is in like manner made a means of plague, as in ver. 3 the sea, 
and in ver. 4 other streams. The sun receives ἐξουσία adapted to its 
nature for these special plagues.18 It concurs with the false reference 
of the ἐδ. αὐτῷ, that — Hengstenb. excepted, who wants to understand the 
sun, as well as also the fire, allegorically — Bengel refers the ἐν πυρί to still 
another fire than that proceeding from the glowing sun. —xaiya μέγα. On 
the accus. with ἐκαυματίσθησαν, οἷ. Winer, p. 214. --- καὶ ἐβλασφήμησαν, x.7.A. 


> 


1 Against De Wette: ‘*Thou who art and 
wast holy.”’ 

2 See Critical Notes, p. 414. 

3 Cf. xiii. 7, 10, vi: 10, xi. 7, xvii. 6, xix. 2. 

4 πεῖν. On this form, see Winer, p. 84. 

δ Cf. v. 8, 11, 13, 14. 

6 Luther, Ziill., ete. 

7 Beda: ‘ The inner affection of saints, an- 
gels, or men, who by teaching rule the people.” 
Andr.: ‘* The angelic powers as bearers of our 
prayers.”’ 


8 Grot.: ““ νἱΖ., the angel who guards the 
spirits of the martyrs.” Cf. vi. 10. Ewald: 
‘© A voice proceeding from an inhabitant of 
heaven standing by the divine altar.” Cf. also 
Ziill., Ebrard, ete. 

9 Cf. also Beng. and Hengstenb., who 
nevertheless speak indefinitely of an angel of 
the altar. 1° Cf., on the other hand, viii. 12. 

11 De Wette, Bleek. 

12 Beng., Hengstenb., Ew. ii. 

13 Cf. the ἐδόθη, vi. 4, 8, vii. 2, ix. 3, 5. 


418 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Just because men perceive that the plagues come from God, before whom 
they, nevertheless, will not bow,! they become the more hardened. 

Vv. 10,11. The fifth vial, poured upon the throne of the beast, brings 
an eclipse over his entire realm. This increase of sorrows also works upon 
the impenitent inhabitants of the earth in such a way that they blaspheme 
God. —éni τὸν θρόνον τοῦ θηρίου! The throne of the beast beheld in definite 
reality (xiii. 2), the actual centre of his entire kingdom, is here meant; in- 
correct are all interpretations ? which explain away the concrete clearness 
of the presentation.?— xai ἐγένετο 7 βασιλεία αὐτοῦ ἐσκοτωμένη, οἷ. Exod. x. 21 sqq.; 
Ps. ev. 28. Even in this special circumstance is the plague like the Egyp- 
tian, in that this darkness is produced not by an injury to the sun,* but 
by an immediate miraculous act. By the expression ἐσκότωμ. an external 
eclipse must be considered, so that the plague is homogeneous with those 
of the preceding vials. The false interpretation of the ἐσκοτωμ. in Grot.,® 
Calov., Vitr., Hengstenb., etc., coincides with the allegorical view of the 
whole.? For the correct understanding of the ἐσκοτωμ., it follows of itself 
that 7 βασιλεία αὖτ. can designate not the rulership,® but only the kingdom of 
the beast considered according to its geographical extent. —xai ἐμασῶντο τὰς 
γλώσσας, x.7.A. “And they gnawed their tongues.” Andr., very properly: 
“The gnawing of the tongues shows the excess of the pain.” The text 
itself gives the explanation: ἐκ τοῦ πονόυϑ The darkness causes a peculiar 
pain, because of its character as a plague. This particular πόνος, however, 
is, according to ver. 11, to be thought of in connection with the plagues 
produced by the preceding vials (τῶν πόνων air.), among which the first is 
still expressly emphasized: καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἑλκῶν ait. The horrible darkness makes 
the other sufferings — identified by Hengstenb. with the darkness which he 
understands figuratively —still more oppressive and comfortless; for the 
last plagues also 19 are, in comparison with the seal- and trumpet-plagues, so 
dreadfully increased, because, while the former plagues came successively, 
these vial-plagues occur in such a way that the one is combined with the 
other. During the fifth vial-plague, at all events the first, and without 
doubt the second and third, are still continuing. The fourth (ver. 8) is 
naturally not to be regarded in connection with the fifth; but under the 
fourth, we are expressly referred to all the preceding plagues (ver. 9: τὰς 
πληγ. TavT.)- — τὸν θεὺν τοὺ οὐρανοῦ. Cf. xi. 138. The designation has here a 
reference as in ver. 9 the τοῦ ἔχ. ἐξουσ., «.7.A.— peter. ἐκ τ. ἔργ. ait, Cf. 
ix. 20 sq. 

Vv. 12-16. The sizth vial is poured upon the Euphrates, and causes it to 
dry up, in order that the kings of the East might pass through. Three 
unclean spirits, which in, the form of frogs issue from the mouths of the 
dragon, and the two beasts serving the dragon, gather the inhabitants of 


1 ix. 20; cf. xi. 13. 6 The Roman dominion lost much of its 
2 In violation also of the analogy of vv. 2, 3, pristine splendor. 

4, 8. 7 Cf. on ver. 21. 
3 Against C. a Lap.: “ρου the kingdom 8 Hengstenb. Cf. Grot. 

and subjects of antichrist,” etc. 9 Cf., on the ἐκ, vv. 11,21. Winer, p. 347. 


4 Cf. ver. 8 sqq. 5 De Wette. 10 xv. 1. 


CHAP. XVI. 12-16. 419 


the earth at Armagedon. — τὸν ποταμὸν τὸν μέγαν τὸν Εὐφράτην. In the sense 
of ix. 14 the starting-point is indicated, in a schematic way, for the kings 
coming from the East, for whom God himself makes the way by drying up 
the Euphrates. The correct estimate of this point is gained only by consider- 
ing it in connection with the correct conception of “the kings” coming 
from “the East.” The problem in general is so to understand all the par- 
ticular features of the representation (vv. 12-16), especially also the signifi- 
cant local designation (ver. 16), that this vial-vision correspond with the 
essential meaning of the other vials. Accordingly, as a whole, nothing else 
can be represented than a revelation of judgment pertaining to the inhabit- 
ants of the earth, according to the analogy of the plagues proceeding from 
the other vials. By a comparison with ix. 14 sqq., the suggestion is readily 
made, that the Eastern kings themselves may be regarded the executors of 
the plagues. So Ewald, who refers to the Parthian allies with whom the 
returning Nero! would go up against Rome.? But the kings of the East 
belong rather to the Baovdeic τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης (ver. 14), and appear as leaders 
of the inhabitants of the whole earth, and, accordingly, as instruments of the 
dragon and the beast (cf. ver. 13), who go up to war, not against Babylon, but 
rather against believers. The kings of the East are identical with the ten 
kings (xvii. 12 sqq.) who give their power to the beast. Just as in xi. 7 the 
beast from the abyss was mentioned proleptically, which nevertheless does 
not enter definitely into the development before ch. xiii.,so here a statement 
is made concerning definite kings (τὼν Bac. τὼν ἀπὸ av., κιτ.}.), Whose more spe- 
cific relation to the beast does not become clear until from xvii. 12 sqq., 
but whose fate is indicated first only in this passage (ver. 16), yet is not 
expressly stated until the actual end.® For the plague of the sixth vial does 
not lie in the fact that those kings come,—this is rather a proof of the 
apparently victorious defiance of the secular power,— but that they assemble 
at Armagedon; i.e., a place where they shall be brought to naught with 
their insolent power.? Bengel® has already correctly acknowledged this by 
saying very appropriately, even though he very preposterously thinks of the 
inroads of the Turks: “It is these very kings who blindly incur the plagues.” 
While in ver. 12 the coming of the kings was so stated, that thereby the 
purpose of God leading those enemies to destructive judgment might be 
marked; on the other hand, in ver. 13 sq., it is emphasized as to how these 
Eastern and all kings of the earth in general are gathered together by the 
dragon to the conflict against believers. [See Note LXXIX., p. 425.] Im- 
mediately from the mouth of the dragon himself (ἐκ τ. crou.),!° and mediately 
from the dragon, from the mouths of the two beasts equipped by the same 


1 Cf. xiii. 3. 3 Cf. xii. 17, xiii. 7, xvii. 12 sqq., xix. 19. 
2 “Τῃ order to sustain Nero, attending anti- 4 De Wette. 
christ, they come to destroy the city.” Cf.also 5 Cf. ver. 13. 
Eichh., Heinr., Volkm., Hilgenf.; Ebrard also 6 Cf. xix. 19. 
belongs here, in so far as he identifies the 7 See on ver. 16. 
kings of the East with the four angels (ix. 15), 8 Cf. De Wette, Hengstenb. 
and regards their expedition directed first, at 9 Cf. Mic. iv. 12 sq. 
least, against Babylon, and then, of course, 10 Cf. ix. 17, xi. 5. Incorrectly, C. a Lap., 


also against believers. etc.: “ At the command.” 


420 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


for the conflict against believers,! three unclean spirits are sent forth, of 
those which serve the dragon, in order to bring together the kings of the 
earth. — ἀκάθαρτα. This formal attribute also? designates the demoniacal 
nature of these spirits. — ὡς βάτραχοι. This addition is not to be referred to 
the mere ἀκάθαρτα, but designates, in the sense of the var. ὅμοια βατράχοις, the 
form in which those spirits appear. It is possible that this form of illustra- 
tion depends upon an allusion to Exod. viii. 1 sqq.,* although the batrachian 
form of the spirits bears no reference whatever to any peculiar pestilential 
nature of frogs, as the spirits are to be regarded only as such as, according 
to the wish of the dragon and of the two beasts, by their deceptive persua- 
sion, move the kings to the expedition against Babylon. But what or who 
be meant by these three spirits, is a question originating from the same mis- 
understanding as that which, e.g., attempts in ix. 14 sqq. to find a supposed 
fulfilment of prophecy within the sphere of ecclesiastical or secular-historical 
facts. ‘To the false question, necessarily, the most arbitrary answers are 
given. ‘The three spirits are, according to Grot.: “ Divination by inspection 
of entrails, by the flight of birds, and the sibylline books, in which Maxen- 
tius trusted” (for vv. 12-16 refer, according to Grot., Hammond, etc., to 
the rout of Maxentius by Constantine); according to Vitr., who explains the 
drying-up of the Euphrates by the circumstance that the kingdom of France, 
drained by its kings, could send no more money to the Pope, the spirits are 
to be understood as referring to the Jesuits; according to Calov.: “The 
Jesuits, Capuchins, and Calvinists;” according to others,5 “The Jesuits, 
Macchiavellians, and Spinozists.” Even Luther explains: “The frogs are 
the sophists, like Faber, Eck, Emser, etc., who banter much against the 
gospel, and yet effect nothing, and remain frogs.” But to the contempla- 
tion of the seer, the three spirits have the same reality as the dragon and 
his two beasts, from whose mouths the spirits actually proceeded.* — εἰσὶ γὰρ 
πνεύματα δαιμονίων ποιοῖντα σημεῖα. The parenthesis which designates the 
unclean spirits expressly as spirits of demons explains their efficacy by the 
remembrance that they are spirits of demons which could perform miracu- 
lous signs. Just as the dwellers upon the earth are brought by the false 
prophet to the adoration of the beast,’ not without the working of miracles, 
so these three spirits also use their miraculous signs as a means whereby 
they attempt to bring together the kings of the earth. — ὦ ἐκπορεύεται ἐπι τ. 
βασιλ. τῆς οἰκουμ. ὅλης, συναγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς, x.7.A. As the words ἃ ἐκπορ. referring 
back to what precedes the parenthesis, relatively carry still further the clause 
k. εἶδον ἐκ τ. στομ., k.7.2., they supply in this way the partic. ἐκπορεύομενα not 
written in ver. 18. --- ἐπὶ τοὺς βασιλ. Cf. xiv. 6; Matt. iii. 7.8 The kings of 
the whole earth, the rulers of all the inhabitants of the earth worshipping 
the beast,? are those to whom the spirits here take their course. They be- 
take themselves to the kings, “to gather them together” (συναγαγεῖν, inf., as 
xii. 17) “to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.” That this day 


AKA? Dydd 6 Of., besides, ix. 17 sq., also ix. 1-11. 
2 Matt. x. 1; Mark i. 26. 7 xiii. 12 sqq. 
3 Ver. 14: πνεύμ,. δαιμονίων. Cf. xviii. 2. 8 Winer, p. 380. 


4 Ew. ii. 5 Cf. Wolf. 9 xiv. 6, 11, xiii. 3 sq., 12. 


CHAP. XVI. 12-16. 421 
is often not understood! in its eschatological definitiveness, i.e.,2 as the 
future day of final judgment,® is owing to the fact that the relation of 
the sixth (and seventh) vial to the actual end‘ is not properly appreciated. 
As by the mention of definite kings, ver. 12 was comprehended already in 
the development of the proper final catastrophe, so ver. 14 also, by the refer- 
ence to the conflict against the saints to be undertaken by all the kings of 
the world combined on the day of final judgment, alludes to a point which 
does not actually occur until in the last time of xix. 19.5 But it is just this 
which corresponds with the character of the penultimate plagues among 
those that are “last,” ὃ that here the demoniacal spirits come forth, who unite 
those kings together with their hosts of people in an attack to be completed 
at the actual end, which will then result, on that great day, by the judgment 
of Almighty God (τ. θεοῦ τ. παντ.),1 in the complete ruin of the enemies.® 
But as thus reference is made from the sphere of the vials to the actual end, 
the artistic plan of the Apoc. again stands forth, involving with it that the 
nearer the proper final judgment with its distinct acts occurs, the more 
definitely appears the connection between it and its various forms of prepa- 
rations, which have come into view in series of visions that, although they 
are distinct, yet interpenetrate one another. —In this also the feeling is 
expressed, that the day of judgment is impending so closely, that the com- 
fort which is. introduced with such emphasis in ver. 15 is occasioned by the 
definite allusion to the same in ver. 14.9—'Idod ἔρχομαι, «.7.A. The prophet 
speaks immediately as in the name of the Lord himself.2° With formal 
incorrectness, Hengstenberg says that Christ himself actually speaks. — ὡς 
κλέπτης, cf. 111. 8. On any day, at any hour, therefore, the Lord may come, 
and thus that great day of the Lord open. Upon this is based the admo- 
nition succeeding without express connection, which, first of all by proffer- 
ing the blessed reward,!! encourages to watchfulness,!? and to the faithful 
keeping, by believers, of their garments,!° but then, also, on the other hand, 
does not refrain from threatening disgrace and punishment against the faith- 
less.14 After the parenetic interlude, there follows in ver. 16 the conclusion 
belonging to ver. 14: καὶ συνήγαγεν αὑτούς. As the subject we can regard nei- 
ther the sixth-vial angel,!5 nor God,!6 nor the dragon,” but only the πνεύματα 
τρία ἀκαθ. (ver. 13),}8 since the συνήγαγεν, with the corresponding expression, 
designates that which was named in ver. 14, as the purpose of those spirits. 


1 So Beng., De Wette; cf. also Ew.i., who, 
however, like Eichh., refers only to the devas- 
tation of Rome. 

2 Cf. ver. 15. 

8 Matt. vii. 22; Luke xvii. 24, 31; Heb. x. 
25; Jude, 6. Cf. 1 Thess. y. 21. 

4 Cf. Beda: ‘‘ The ἡμερα is the entire time 
from the Lord’s passion.’’ Hengstenb.: ‘* The 
day of God has a comprehensive character, 
which unites into one picture all the phases 
in it of the judgment of God against ungodly 
wickedness.” 

5 Cf. also Ew. ii. and Volkm. 

6 xv. 1. 


" Of 4:8, xt xvist: 

8 Cf. ver. 16. 

® Cf. xiii. 9 sqq., xiv. 12 sqq. 

10 Cf, xxii. 7, 12, 20; De Wette. 

ll Cf. xiv. 3, xix. 9, xxii. 7, 14. 

12 jii. 2 sq. 

13 Of. iii. 18, vii. 14. 

14 Cf. iii. 18, also vii. 9, 14. 

15 Beng. 

16 Hengstenb., Ebrard. 

17 Ver. 18; Ew. ii.; Volkm.: ‘‘ The beast.” 
18 Ewald, Bleek, De Wette. 

19 ἃ ἐκπορ. συναγαγεῖν. Observe here also 
the sing. with the ἃ. 


422 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

The peculiar point of the entire section (vv. 12-16) lies in the significant 
naming of the place of assembling of the antichristian kings of the world: 
In Hebrew the place is called ‘Apuayeddv. The name is to be explained 
either etymologically, i.e., from the meaning of the Hebrew words contained 
therein, or historically, i.e., so that the Hebrew proper name, by its reference 
to some fact of the O. T. history, appears characteristically for the present 
case, which is accordingly transferred to that Armagedon. The etymo- 
logical explanation is attempted by many of the older writers without a 
proper foundation in a linguistic respect. The most admissible is the inter- 
pretation of Drusius, who understands the words 7:9°n “destruction,” and — 
1771 “army,” so that the entire name means “the slaughter of their army.” 
This is more correct in a linguistic respect, and as a matter of fact, than 
when Rinck makes of it a compound of [798 (which he regards as meaning 
“castle”) and VJ1 “fortress,” and thus finds the capital designated; just as 
Grot., who in other respects follows, in etymological explanation, the foot- 
steps of Drusius, solves it as “Mons Janiculus.” But if John had had in 
mind the obscure verbal interpretation of the name Arm., he would scarcely 
have refrained from giving the Greek explanation to his readers in Asia 
Minor;? on which account we are the rather directed to the historical inter- 
pretation by a significant prototype. This has been attempted in various 
ways by Tichon., Ribera, Coccejus, Vitr., Bengel, Eichhorn, Ewald, Ziillig, 
Hofm., Hengstenb., Ebrard, Bleek, Volkm.,? in combination with the ety- 
mological interpretation. The place at which, in the times of the judges, 
the Canaanite kings were slaughtered by the Israelites,> and where King 
Josiah was defeated by the Egyptians,®° the LXX. call Μαγεδώ (Mayedda). 
The allusion to one of the two events would be liable to no doubt whatever, 
if John had not named the locality meant by him as ᾿Αρμαγεδών (111 W), 
i.e., Mount Megiddo, while the more express determinations in the O. T. read 
either ἐν τῷ medu May.” or ἐπὶ ὕδατι May. But this additional circumstance, 
which also admits at least of a probable explanation,® can in no way lead us 
astray as to the chief reference of the name Megiddo in the O. T. Yet the 
defeat of the people of God, and of his King Josiah, cannot be the prototype 
for this passage,!° as the subject here has respect to a defeat of antichristian 


1 According to Beda, ‘Appay. is meant to be 
‘a holy city, i.e., the Church.” He compares 
then xx. 9. Yet he regards also possible: ‘* in- 
surrection against what precedes,” “ἃ spheri- 
cal mountain,” so as to designate ‘‘a place of 
the godless.”” Andr. interprets, διακοπή. It 
indicates the extermination (ἐκκόπτεσθαι) of 
enemies. C.a Lap. explains: ‘“ The artifice of 
the congregation, because God, as it were, by 
an artifice will unite those kings with anti- 
christ, so as to destroy all in one day.”? More 
to the same effect in the Crit. Sacr. Luther 
has the gloss: “In German, doomed warriors, 
accursed equipment, or unsuccessful warriors, 
from Herem and Gad.” 

2 Cf. ix. 11; Beng., Hengstenb. 


8 Cf. also De Wette, who, however, vacil- 
lates. 

4 Vitr., Eichh., Ziillig. 

5 Judg. v. 19. 

6 2 Kings xxiii. 29 sqq.; 2 Chron. xxxv. 22. 
Cf. Zech. xii. 11. 

7 2 Chron., l. c. 

8 Judg., l. c. 

9 See above. 

10 It is said incorrectly (Hengstenb., Hofm., 
etc.), that the reference to the defeat of Josiah 
is rendered the more probable by the example 
of Zech. xii. 11; forif on the one hand the con- 
tents of Zech. 1. c. are completely distinct from 
those of this passage, it is also to be observed 
that the LXX., of whom John is by no means 

\ 


CHAP. XVI. 17-21. 423 
enemies; but only the victory of Israel,? as it is described in Judg. v. 19, 
won by God’s miraculous aid over the βασιλεῖς Χαναάν at Megiddo. By desig- 
nating the place, therefore, where the antichristian kings assemble for battle 
against Christ and his Church, by that name, it is indicated that the fate of 
the antichristian kings shall be the same as that of the Canaanites formerly 
at Megiddo. With this thought, the designation Mount Megiddo appears 
also to correspond. For as the subject has to do not with an actual, but 
only with an ideal, geographical specification, in the designation Mount Meg., 
there can lie an intimation of the immovableness and victory of the Church 
of God. [See Note LXXX., p. 425.] This ideal character of the geo- 
graphical designation prevents, however, the explanation that Armagedon is 
Rome,‘ or the mountains of Judah, where the enemies are to gather until 
they are annihilated in the Valley of Jehoshaphat.5 Without any support 
whatever in the text is the view of Ew. ii., that since the numerical value of 
ΠΝ is the same as that of moan m7 (viz., 304), by hieroglyphic art 
“Rome the great” is expressly designated. Concerning the number of a 
name,® nothing whatever is said in this passage.? 

Vv. 17-21. The seventh vial poured into the air brings—after a voice 
proceeding from the throne of God has proclaimed the end — unprecedented 
plagues upon the chief city of the beast and the entire empire. Yet men 
continue their blasphemy of God. — ἐπὶ τὸν ἀέρα. Cf. ver. 8. — φωνὴ wey. ἀπὸ 
τοῦ ναοῦ. According to this, the voice of God himself is to be understood 
just as in ver. 1; the further designation ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου shows this with still 
greater certainty. As the command to pour forth the vials was imparted 
by God himself, so there also comes forth from God's own mouth the final 
exclamation comprised in one word: Téyovev. This γέγονεν, “ factum est,” 8 
refers to ver. 1 ; now that is done which is there commanded.? Cf. xxi. 6, 
where, likewise, a definite determination of the subject results from the con- 
nection. Thus the explanation of Eichh., Ewald,! is far out of the way, 
while that of Grot.,!1 which recalls the Virgilian: Fuimus Troes, is inapposite. 
— καὶ ἐγένοντο ἀστραπαὶ, κιτιλ. The same signs, only extremely heightened, 
which also, xi. 19, signalize the immediately impending entrance of the 
actual end; yet the misunderstanding — as though in vv. 28-21 the end 
itself were described—is removed by the text itself, because it treats 


independent, do not have there the name Μα-Ἦ that of the Israelites at Megiddo, but that 


γεδώ atall. They explain it as ἐν πεδίῳ ἐκκοπ- 
touevov. With this the above-cited interpreta- 
tion of Andreas is in remarkable agreement. — 
Possible, and of interesting facility, is the ex- 
planation of Hitzig (cf. Hilgenf., p. 440): 
᾿Αρμαγ. ="T) Vy, i.e., the city M. Cf. also 
Kienlen. But it is not perceptible why John 
would not have abode by the mere name May., 
if he had not wished to give the idea of the 
mountain. 

1 Against Ewald, Hengstenb.; also against 
Hofm., Schriftbew., II. 2, p. 639, who, however, 
makes the alteration, that in the beginning of 
the war the experience of the saints shall be 


finally the enemies shall be trodden down in 
the Valley of Jehoshaphat. 

2 Beng., Ebrard, Klief. 

3 Cf. Ps. cxxi. 1, cxxv. 2. 

4 Ewald. 

5 Ziillig. 

5. Cf. ΧΙ, 18. 

7 Bleek already has declared against Ew. 

§ Vulg. 

9 Luke xiv. 22; Beng., De Wette, Hengst- 
enb. 

10 Actum est, i.e., the end and sure destruc- 
tion of Rome is at hand. 

11 Fuit Roma, Cf. also Vitr. 


\ 


424 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
of a particular vial-plague, which, like the preceding, expressly makes 
known, also in ver. 21 (x. é@Aao¢., «.7.4.), its only preparatory significance 
with respect to the actual final judgment. —«. ἐγέν. ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη εἰς τρία 
μέρη, κιτιΔ. From the connection of’ch. xiii., as well as from the context, 
ch. xvi., it undoubtedly follows that “the great city,’’ which was rent into 
three parts, is identical with “great Babylon,” i.e., the metropolis of the 
world, which appeared in ch. xiii. in the form of the beast from the sea.? 
In addition to the great city divided into three parts,? the other “cities of 
the nations ” which fall down are also mentioned. The great city, or great 
Babylon, is, therefore, heathen Rome,‘ not Jerusalem.5 The heathen metrop- 
olis is affected in the same way by the mighty earthquake which the last vial 
brings, — but in a heightened degree, — as in xi. 13, the city of Jerusalem is 
by the final visitation in the second woe. But there the last plague, which 
comes upon Jerusalem before the final judgment,® works repentance in the 
rest; while in the heathen metropolis, and in the entire realm of the beast, 
all the plagues, even those which are most dreadful, effect nothing but per- 
severing blasphemy of God.? — ἐμνήσθη ἑνώπιον τ. θ., «.7.A. On the expression, 
cf. Acts x. 81; on the thing designated, Ps. x. 138. — τὸ ποτῆριον τ. oiv. τ. θυμοῦ 
τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτου. The expression 8 is just as full as possible, because it is 
intended to state how the wrath (épy7) existing in God operates in its entire 
force. Vitr. explains θυμὸς τῆς ὀργῆς excellently by excandescentia irae.® [See 
Note LXXXI., p. 426.] On ver. 20, cf. vi. 14. — ὡς ταλαντιαίας The mon- 
strous size of the hail, whereby the plague is rendered so dreadful.!° Hail- 
stones of the weight of a mina (μνααὶ a), Diodor. Sicul., xix. 45, already calls 
incredibly great; but in this passage hailstones of the weight of a talent, 
which contains sixty minae, therefore, designates them as so heavy as 
though thrown, like sling-stones, from catapults. — x. εβλασφήμησαν, k.7.A. 
It dare not be urged? that here also the impenitence is not expressly men- 
tioned, and it is not here stated that this immediately fatal hail left no time 
for repentance, that the men thus struck by the same could, only when 
dying, still blaspheme;}* for it is scarcely the meaning, that those indi- 
viduals, who have been struck by the dreadful hail, utter their blasphemies 
in the very moment of death; but rather, while the hail falls, the men blas- 
pheme, i.e., those not immediately struck by it, who, nevertheless, have before 
their eyes the plague threatening them every moment. Some fall, struck 
dead; others blaspheme. 

The vial-visions have received an allegorical interpretation in the same 
way as the seal- and trumpet-visions. As an example the following may be 


1 Cf. xiv. 8. 

2 Of also ch. xvii. 

3 The number three (cf. viii. 7, 8, 11, 18) has 
possibly a reference to the three chief enemies, 
ver. 13 (Ebrard). 

4 Alcas., Ewald, De Wette, Volkm., Bleek, 
Hengstenb. 

5 Andreas, C.a Lap., Beng., Ziill., Stern., 
Ebrard, etc., who increase the confusion by 
explaining the great city, partly, like Ebrard, 


in the sense of xi. 8; and great Babylon, on the 
other hand, according to xiv. 8. 

6 Cf. xi. 15 sqq. 

7 Ver. 21. Cf. vv. 9; ΕἿΣ 

9 ΞΕ Trascibility of anger.” 

10 Ver. 21b. 

11 Cf. Joseph., B. J., v. 6, 3: ταλανταῖοι --- 
οἱ βαλλόμενοι πέτροι- 

12 Beng., Hengstenb. 

13 Hengstenb. 


δ᾽ Of; xiv. 10. 


NOTES. 425 | 


noticed :1 Wetst., who in it all saw a representation of the Vitellian war, 
explained ver. 2 a diseases in the army of Vitellius, ver. 3 of the treachery 
of the fleet, ver. 19 the τρία μέρη (the three parties), as the Vitellian, the 
Flavian, and that of the Roman people. The last, Grot. refers to the fact 
that .Totila had demolished the third of the walls of Rome. Nevertheless, 
the explanation of three classes of men has found most approval.?  Vitr. 
interprets ver. 2 as referring to the exposure of the corruption of the Church 
by the Waldenses; ver. 3, to wars between the Popes and the Emperors 
(1056-1211); ver. 4, to the Church’s thirst for blood, manifested in Cast- 
nitz; ver. 10 sq., to the obscuring of the Papacy by the Reformation.® 
Beng. and Hengstenb. repeat their explanations, known already from the 
former visions, that the earth, ver. 2, is Asia; the sea, ver. 3, is Europe; 4 
that ver. 3 refers to the shedding of blood in war, and ver. 4 to the infringe- 
ment of prosperity.5 The islands and mountains, ver. 20, are, accor ding to 
Andr., churches and church-teachers ; according to Hengstenb., kingdoms. 


‘NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LXXIX. Ver. 12. τῶν βασιλέω τῶν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῇ. 


In entire harmony with Diisterdieck, Alford: ‘‘ In order to understand what 
we here read, we must carefully bear in mind the whole context. From what 
follows under this same vial, we learn that the kings of the whole earth are 
about to be gathered to the great battle against God, in which he shall be 
victorious, and they shall utterly perish, The time is now come for this 
gathering; and, by the drying-up of the Euphrates, the way of those kings 
who are to come from the East is made ready. To suppose the conversion of 
Eastern nations, or the gathering-together of Christian princes, to be meant, or 
to regard the words as relating to any auspicious event, is to introduce a totally 
incongruous feature into the series of vials which confessedly represent ‘the 
sever last plagues.’ ”’ 


LXXX. Ver. 16. ‘Apyayedav, 


So also Gebhardt (p. 274): “It is clear that by this name we are to 
understand Megiddo, which Judg. v. 19, 2 Kings xxiii. 29, 2 Chron. xxxv. 
20-24 (cf. Zech. xii. 10, 11), mention as the great battlefield of the O. T. But 
a mere statement of locality cannot be intended, for then it would not be called 
Armageddon, but Megiddo or Magedon; nor would it be said that the locality 
was so called in the Hebrew. This addition, as well as the compound name, 
compels us to notice the verbal meaning, and yet not the etymological meaning 
of Magedon, which John, on account of its difficulty, would certainly have 
added in Greek (cf. ix. 11), but only that Armageddon in Hebrew means Hill 


1 Cf. on ver. 12 sqq. lem. Alcas.: Christians, heathen, and neu- 
2 Beda: ‘* The godless state brings war in trals in Rome during the time of Constantine. 
three ways upon the Church; viz., through the 3 Cf. Calov., etc. 
heathen, the Jews, and the heretics.’’ Andr.: 4 Beng. 


Christians, Jews, and Samaritaus in Jerusa- 5 Hengstenb. 


426 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


of Megiddo. It is in the highest degree probable, that, in this designation, the 
seer refers to Zech. xii. 11: ‘in the Valley of Megiddo,’ —valley, symbol of 
defeat; hill, of victory, —and wishes us to understand that what the heathen 
once did against Josiah and his people at Megiddo would now find its counter- 
part in what they did against Jesus and his followers; but that as once, in the 
Valley of Megiddo, the theocracy was borne to the grave with Josiah, so, in 
Armageddon, the Hill of Megiddo, the Lord would avenge the crime of the 
heathen.’? The point of comparison here is rather with the battle of Judg. v. 
19, as Ebrard shows, and Diisterdieck seems to intimate, than with that of 
2 Kings xxiii. 29, as Gebhardt states. Thomson (Central Palestine and 
Phenicia, p. 218) explains the adoption of the local name for that of the 
great prophetic conflict, by the fact that the Apostle John was a native of 
Galilee, well acquainted with the natural features and ancient history of the 
great plain of Esdraelon to which it belonged. So, too, Stanley (Sinai and 
Palestine, Ὁ. 330): ‘‘If that mysterious book proceeded from the hands of a 
Galilean fisherman, it is the more easy to understand why, with the scene of 
those many battles constantly before him, he should have drawn the figurative 
name of the final conflict between the hosts of good and evil from ‘the place 
which is called, in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon,’ i.e., the city or moun- 
tain of Megiddo.’’ See also Alford. 


LXXXI. Ver. 19. τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς ὀργῆς. 


Cremer: “θυμός denotes the inward excitement, and ὀργῇ the outward 
manifestation of it; οὗ, Deut. xxix. 20; Num. xxxii. 14; Isa. ix. 19; Josh. vii. 
26; 1 Sam. xxviii. 18.) Trench: ‘‘ The general result is, that in θυμός is more 
of turbulent commotion, the boiling agitation of the feelings, either presently 
to subside and disappear, or else to settle down into ὀργῇ, wherein is more of an 
abiding and settled habit of the mind, with the purpose of revenge.’’ Thayer 
(Lexicon) : θυμός, ‘‘ anger forthwith boiling up, and soon subsiding; opy7, on the 
contrary, denotes indignation which has arisen gradually and become more 
settled.”’ 


CHAP. XVII. - “G7 


CHAPTER XVII. 


Ver. 8. The rec. γέμον ὀνομάτων βλασφ. is certainly false. It is more probable 
and intelligible to read, with Tisch., according to A, 7, 8, al., γέμον τὰ ὀνόματα 
βλασφ. (14, 18, al., also have ὀνόματα, but without the art.), than, with Lach., 
Tisch. LX. [W. and H.], γέμοντα ὀνόματα BA, In the δὲ, the ra has been deleted 
by the corrector. But the immediately succeeding defective ἔχοντα has con- 
tinued so to stand. W.and H.: ἔχων. --- Ver. 4. The καὶ before κεχρυσ. (A, 
ἐς, Vulg., Elz., Lach., Tisch. [X. [W. and H.]), which is lacking in B (Tisch.), 
may be interpolated. τὰ ἀκάθαρτα. So A, B, δὲ, 2, 4, 6, al., Compl., Genev., 
Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The rec. ἀκαθάρτητος is an inter- 
pretation, as the τῶν ἀκαθάρτων in Areth. — Ver. 8. Instead of ὑπάγειν (B, καὶ, 
Elz., Tisch. IX.), read ὑπάγει (A, 12, Andr., Areth., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). 
-- καὶ πάρεσται. So A, B, 2, 3, 4, al., Compl., Plant., Genev., Beng., Griesb., 
Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Incorrectly, Elz.: καίπερ ἐστίν. δ) has καὶ πάλιν 
πάρεστε (corr.: καὶ πάρεστιν. The πάλιν is an effort at interpretation; the 
πάρεστε, however, points to the correct reading. — Ver. 11. καὶ αὐτος ὄγδ. So A, 
al., edd., interpretations are: κ. οὗτος dyd, (B), οὗτος ὁ yd. (8), ete. 


After the last plagues! have been inflicted, the final judgment itself 
follows, and that, too, in various chief acts whereby the individual chief 
enemies are judged successively. From ch. xii. on, as such, there are 
represented, first, the dragon himself, as the proper old enemy; then the 
beast out of the sea, i.e., the heathen-Roman secular power; finally, the 
beast out of the earth, serving this beast, or the false prophet. But while 
the description of the enemies of the Lord and his believers properly took 
this course, which proceeds from the original author of all antichristian 
hostility, from Satan himself, to the hostile powers manifesting themselves 
in the reality of experience by the shedding of blood and other persecutions 
of believers,? by the seduction of the inhabitants of the earth, and by blas- 
phemy of God; the reverse order follows for the description of the judg- 
ment. Satan himself—even apart from that which lies beyond xx. 3—is 
at last judged, and, before him, his instruments, who serve him unto the 
end; viz., the beast and the false prophet.6>— But the description of the 
judgment is not limited to this chief feature; but just that part of the Apoca- 
lyptic picture is portrayed in a more detailed way, which refers to the anti- 
christian secular power as in manifest reality arrayed against believers. This 
is now brought to view under the two forms (xvii. 3) belonging together, as 
they stand there in their entire opposition to God, and incur the Divine 


1 Cf. xv. 1. 3 Cf. xiii. 4 sqq., xii. sqq., xiv. 8, xvi. 21. 
2 Cf. xiii. 7, 10, 15, xvi. 6. 4 xx. 1 sqq. 5 xix. 19 sqq. 


428 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


judgment. ΡΝ the Roman Empire (Weltreiohe) as a whole, the beast, 
there is a particular description of the metropolis of the world (Weltstadt), 
the harlot who sits upon the beast, the concrete focus of the power of the 
world with all its abominations. This harlot upon the beast is now shown 
to the prophet} as the immediate object of the final judgment that now 
enters; and, indeed, not only what John himself beholds (xvii. 1-6), but 
also that which the angel says to him in interpretation of what is beheld 
(vv. 7-14, vv. 15-18), serves besides to represent the harlot as the completely 
worthy object of the judgment. To the judgment itself, then, the section 
Xviil. 1 sqq. refers. 

Vv. 1-6. One of the ialoihoels allows John to see the harlot. — καὶ 7A0ev, 
The angel had thus far occupied a standpoint adapted for the business 
described in ch. xvi., the pouring-out of his vials; now he comes to John 
in order not only to speak with him (ver. 1 sqq.), but also to carry him in 
spirit to another place (ver. 8). -- εἰς ἐκ τ. émt. ἀγγ., «.7.4. One of the seven 
vial-angels. Incorrectly, Eichh.: εἰς is equivalent to πρῶτος.2 It is in no 
way to be conjectured which of the vial-angels it was; but that just by one 
of these he will be afforded a view of the judgment, is especially appropriate, 
because these angels have brought the last plagues immediately preceding 
the judgment, and that, too, without impelling the worldly kingdom to 
repentance.’ — Δεῦρο. Cf. xxi. 9, also vi. 3, 5, 7. --- δείξω σοι τὸ κρίμα, K.T.A. 
The fulfilment of the promise is not immediately presented in ver. 3,4 nor 
even at all in ch. xvii.; for even though in ver. 3 (ἔρημον), in the description 
of the ostentatious woman, there is an allusion to the judgment now impend- 
ing, aS also the interpreting angel, ver. 16, expressly proclaims the future 
devastation of the city symbolized by the harlot, yet neither the appearance 
of the woman herself, nor the interpreting speech of the angel, gives the idea 
of a judgment already actually present. But the angel first of all shows 
the harlot in her antichristian form,—which is necessary, because the 
special view of the city, in distinction from that of the empire as a whole, is, 
at least in this definite form, new, — and not until afterwards does the judg- 
ment occur (cf. xviii. 1 sqq.). — τῆς πόρνης τῆς μεγάλης, x.7.A. From the entire 
presentation, especially from ver. 18, it follows that “the great harlot” is the 
personification of “the great city,” i.e., of heathen Rome as the metropolis 
of the entire heathen-Roman Empire ;5 therefore the harlot is designated 
in like manner as previously the beast, which symbolizes the entire realm. 
The special description of the city is prepared already by such passages as 
xiv. 8, xvi. 19:5 but the city appears as a harlot, because to this applies 
what has previously been said concerning it as Babylon the great (cf, ver. 2). 
—éni ὑδάτων πολλῶν. In this also like Babylon.” But this sitting on masses 
of water, which is regarded as presenting itself to the eye of the seer, has 
a symbolical meaning which the angel explains in ver. 15.— μεθ᾽ ἧς ἐπόρνευσαν 
οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς. Of all nations this was said in xiv. 8; for the masses of 
the inhabitants of the earth have allowed themselves to be seduced § in the 


1 xvii. 1 sqq. 2 Cf. vi..1. δ᾽ See on ver. 18. 6 Cf. also xvi. 10. 
8 xvi. 9, 11, 21. τ Ὁ, Vetere. 
4 Against Hengstenb. 8 Cf. xviii. 3. 


CHAP. XVII. 3-6. 429 


same way as the kings of the earth by the beast, and ‘especially by the city 
wherein is the throne of the beast.1_ Accordingly it is said immediately 
afterwards: καὶ ἐμεθύσθησαν of κατοικοῦντες τὴν γῆν, «7.2. On the suppression 
of the relative constr., cf. Winer, p. 141. 

Vv. 3-6. The view of the harlot promised John, ver. 1 sq., is afforded 
after the angel has carried him away in the spirit into the wilderness. — 
ἀπήνεγκε we. XXi. 10. De Wette explains the idea from Luke xvi. 22; but 
the ἐν πνεύματι in this passage does not mention so much an actual abandon- 
ment of the body,? as rather that this change of standpoint has been wrought 
to the ecstatic consciousness of the seer by an angel.?— gic ἔρημον. The 
identification of this wilderness with that mentioned in xii. 6, 14, impos- 
sible in a formal respect, because of the omission of the art., coincides in 
Auberlen with the view that the harlot, ch. xvii., is identical with the 
woman, ch. xii.4 Why the harlot, with all her ostentation, is beheld in a 
wilderness, the text itself indicates, ver. 16:5 for complete desolation is 
impending over her.® Incorrect, therefore, are the explanations of the 
wilderness by Beda: “ The absence of divinity ;” Coccej.: “ That part of the 
world wherein, at John’s time, idolatry and persecution prevailed ;” Bengel: 
“Europe, especially Italy.” Incorrect also Vitr.: “ Deserted of nations ;” 
yet Vitr. has felt that the seeming contradiction between ver. 1 (καθημ. ἐπὶ 
ὑδάτων πολλ.) and ver. 3, in the sense of the passage already compared by 
him, Isa. xxi. 1, with which he improperly combines Ezek. xx. 35 (ἔρημος τῶν 
λαῶν), is explained, of course, not by the allegorical exposition that the 
wilderness, like the waters, designates many nations, but so that the sitting 
on the waters, i.e., the dominion over the nations (ver. 15) does not exclude 
the impending devastation. — θηρίον κόκκινον.. That now, since the form of 
the harlot, i.e., of the metropolis, is so expressly distinguished from that 
of the beast, i e., of the empire, this beast appears in some features different 
from in ch. xili., in no way destroys the identity of both beasts, clearly 
designated by the similarity of the chief features.7_ This identity is not 
definitely marked; it was just the partial change in form of manifestation 
that did not permit John to write ἐπὶ τὸ θηρ., but he reports his vision which 
revealed to him figures in a form such as in fact they had not yet appeared : 
He saw a woman seated upon a scarlet-colored beast. The κόκκινον desig- 
nates not the color of a covering which is to be ascribed to the beast,® but 
the color of the beast itself. It is, like the fiery-red color of the dragon 
whom the beast serves,® a sign of the blood shed by it.1° The difference 
from the representation, xiii. 2, is, therefore, not a proof of an actual differ- 
ence of beasts, because in both forms the same thing is brought to sight; 
only this passage points more definitely to the blood actually shed, while in 
xill. 2, in the form of the O. T. types, the dreadful power of the fierce beast, 


1 Cf. xvi. 10. 6 Andr.,C.aLap., Ewald, De Wette, Hofm., 
2 Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2. Hengstenb., etc. 
3 Cf. iv. 1 sqq., x. 8 sqq., xi. 1, xii. 18; var. 7 Against Ziill., Ebrard. 
lect. 8 Ziill., De Wette. 
4 See on ver. 18. 9 xii. 3; cf. vi. 4. 


5 Cf. xviii. 2, 16, 19. 10 Cf. xvi. 6, xi. 7. 


430 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


as that of a monstrous beast of prey, was first symbolized. — γέμον τὰ ὀνόματα 
βλασφ. This also, as well as the succeeding description ἔχον κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ, x.7.7.., 
agrees in essentials with xiii. 1; not all of the heads of the beast, however, 
bear a name of blasphemy, but that the whole beast is covered with that 
name of blasphemy is what is now stated. The art. τὰ ὄν.» which has been’ 
omitted through a misunderstanding,! refers back to xiii. 1. The accus. 
ὀνόματα stands here with γέμον, for the same reason as possibly with πεπληρω- 
pévov;? yet this construction remains remarkable, since elsewhere in the 
Apoc. the gen. stands with γέμον. --α The woman herself (ver. 4) appears 
“arrayed ” (περιβεβλ. xii. 1) “in purple and scarlet-colored” garments.4 The 
first garment ® indicates royal sovereignty. Even the κόκκινον could in itself ® 
have this meaning; but it is, on the one hand, superfluous by two emblems 
to designate the same thing; on the other hand, from the reference to ver. 3 
(θηρ. xoxx.), another significant interpretation of the scarlet, i.e., blood- 
colored, garment of the woman, excellently agreeing with ver. 6, results: 
both are indicated; viz., the royal dominion,’ and the being stained with 
the blood of the saints.8 Beda errs in a twofold way: “The purple of 
feigned dominion.” — xeypvowuévn — μαργαρίταις. Further description of royal 
and most rich display. The xeypuc. stands zeugmatically to λίθ. τιμ. and 
papy. — ἔχουσα ποτήριον χρυσοῦν, x.7.A. The precipitate allegoristics, which 
could find indicated in the words κεχρυσ., «.7.2., “the enticements of feigned 
truth,” 19 results here in arbitrary explanations: The golden cup, with its 
abominable contents,!! is regarded as hypocrisy,!* “ worldly happiness, the 
majesty of government,” 13 “the body of words which are read in Scrip- 
ture, but distorted by wicked interpretations,” 14 “the system of papal doc- 
trine,” “the cup of the mass.” 15 The text allows us to think only that the 
harlot who renders all kings and nations drunk with the wine of her forni- 
cation 15 has a cup in her hand which is golden, just as she herself is adorned 
with gold and precious jewellery, but is full “of abominations,” because the 
wine of her fornication is therein. With γέμον the accusat. κ. τὰ ἀκάθαρτα is 
construed 17 in the same sense 18 as the genitive @deA,; but this harshness, 
which is the more remarkable as the genitive limitation is given in a 
single word, can scarcely be explained by the fact 19 that the threefold genit. 
τῶν ἀκάθαρτων τῆς πορν. abr. was to be avoided. It appears, accordingly, more 
correct 2° to regard the accusat. καὶ τὰ ἀκ. parallel with the accusat. ποτήριον, 
κιτιλ., and to make it depend upon the ἔχουσα in such a way that the words 
καὶ τὰ ἀκ., «.7.A., themselves bring later an interpretation of the zorjp. χρυσ. 
γέμ. de, — More expressly still than the corresponding appearance does the 


1 See Critical Notes. 

2 Phil. i. 11; Col.i.9. Winer, p. 215. 

3 Ver. 4, iv. 8, xv. 7. 

4 Cf. xviii. 16. 

5 Cf. John xix. 2. 

6 Cf. Matt. xxvii. 28. 

7 Cf. ver. 18. 

8 Against Andr., Erasm., De Wette, 
Hengstenb., ete. 

9 Cf. Ezek. xxviii. 13. 


10 Beda. 

11 βδελυγμ. Cf. Lev. xviii. 27. 

12 Beda. 

13 C. a Lap. 

14 Coccej. 15 Calov. 


16 Ver. 2, xiv. 8. 

17 Ewald, De Wette, Bleek, Hengstenb., etc. 
18 Cf. ver. 3. 

19 Hengstenb. 

20 Cf. xviii. 12. 


CHAP. XVII. 3-6. 431 


name, which stands written on the forehead of the woman,! designate her 
lewd, abominable nature. The name runs: βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη, ἡ μῆτηρ, κ-τ.1. 
The name μυστήριον is not the first constituent of the proper name,? but 
designates with a certain parenthetical independence, like a premised 
“ Nota bene,” that the name now to be mentioned is meant spiritually,® 
or in ἃ manner accordant with revelation, not without the covering; that 
beneath the external brilliancy the secret nature, and, in spite of the secular 
dominion presented to the eyes, the unmistakable corruption of the woman, 
are asserted.* Nevertheless, the word μυστήριον dare not be regarded precisely 
as an adjective attribute to évoua.5—The mysterious proper name βαβ. ἡ 
wey. is expressly the same as has already designated in xiv. 8, xvi. 9, the 
chief city as the concrete representative of the entire empire. The further 
designation expresses appellatively, by another change of figure, essentially 
what was delineated in the manifestation itself (ver. 4, ἔχ. mor. xpuc.), to 
which the significant name also is to correspond. As “the mother of har- 
lots,” ete., this great Babylon has shown herself by the circumstance that 
she has made her daughters, i.e., the cities of the Gentiles,® harlots, given 
them to drink of her own cup of abominations, and filled the whole world 
with her own abominations.? — Finally, John beholds, ver. 6, the woman 
in a condition to which the scarlet color of her garment, and of the beast 
whereon she sits, corresponds: “ Drunken with the blood of the saints and 
with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” On the expression, cf. Plin., H. N., 
xiv. 28: “Drunken with the blood of citizens, and thirsting the more for 
it; δ on the subject itself, cf. xvi. 6, xvili. 24. —é τ᾿ aiv. Cf. xvi. 10, viii. 
11. --- τ. μαρτύρων Ino. Cf. ii. 13. The martyrs of Jesus are not in kind dis- 
tinguished from the saints; but the former designation brings into promi- 
nence the fact as to how this testimony of Jesus, which the saints have 
given, becomes the cause of their death.9— καὶ ἐθαύμασα, x.7.A. The accus. 
θαῦμα μεγα With ἐθαύμ., as xvi. 9. The ground of John’s great astonishment 
is in general the just-described sight of the woman (ἰδὼν atryy); but in how 
far must this sight have occasioned such great astonishment? The most 
forcible reason would be that named by Auberlen, if he had the right to 
recognize again in the harlot the degenerate woman of xii. 1. This would, 
in fact, be something completely incomprehensible; but neither the angel 
(ver. 7 sqq.) attempts to explain this impossibility, neither does there exist 
anywhere else in the text an occasion for the egregious mistake of such a 
conception. Arbitrary, because not based upon ver. 7 sqq., are the expla- 
nations of Bengel: “John wondered, because so mighty a beast has to 
serve the woman in carrying her;” of Hengstenberg, who describes the 
astonishment of the seer as “unreasonable, foolish,” 19 because the harlot, 
in spite of her dreadful guilt, still maintains her greatness; of Ebrard: 
because the beast appears to be entirely different from in ch. xiii. The 


1 Cf. xiii. 16. 2 Vitr., etc. 6 xvi. 19; Ew. 
5, Of, xi. 8: 7 Cf. xiii. 3 sqq., 14 sqq., xiv. 8 sqq., 11. 
4 Cf.C.a Lap., Beng., De Wette, Ewald, 8 More illustrations in Wetst. 

etc 2 Cf. xi38: 


5 Cf. Hofm., O. S., 644. 10 Cf. also on v. 4 sqq. 


432 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


angel designates in ver. 7, entirely in agreement with the ἰδὼν αὐτὴν, ver. 6, 
the mystery of the woman, and the beast carrying her, as the cause, to be 
explained by interpretation, of the astonishment of John, who himself did 
not understand! the σημεῖον θαυμαστόν 2 thus beheld by him. . 

Vy. 7-18. The interpretation of the angel (ver. 1) as to how the vision 
(vv. 1,6) has manifested two chief figures, follows in two paragraphs tiie 
7-14 and vv. 15-18), which are separated by the formula καὶ λέγει δὰ 
repeated in ver. 15. 

Vv. 7-14. The question of the angel, διὰ τί ἐθαύμασας, introduces the in- 
tended interpretation just as the question of the elders (vil. 13), only that 
here the angel expects no answer whatever of John, but immediately him- 
self promises: ἐγὼ ἐρῶ σοι τὸ μυστήριον, «.7.2. This announcement marks that 
the two chief forms, the woman and the beast, which of course are explained 
each by themselves, —as they symbclize subjects that are actually different, 
the world-city and the world-kingdom, — nevertheless belong together essen- 
tially; there is but one mystery, the mystery “of the woman and of the 
beast.” Although the woman and the beast are distinguished, the present 
description remains, therefore, in essential agreement with that of ch. xiii. 
Nevertheless, the inner connection between the woman and the beast is 
expressed by the fact that the woman is seated upon the beast. (τ. βασταζ. 
αὐτ., cf. ver. 8.) In perfect harmony with this is the circumstance that the 
beast is first (ver. 8) explained, and only then, that which is more special, 
which is first received from that further conception, the form of the woman. 
— Of the beast which John saw (ver. 3 sqq.), it is said: ἣν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν καὶ 
μέλλει ἀναβαίνειν ἐκ τῆς ἀϑύσσου, «.7.2., and this is again expressed as a founda- 
tion for the astonishment of the inhabitants of the earth: * ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν Kai 
πάρεστα. This summary πάρεσται ---- which simply means “shall be,” but in 
which an intimation of a parousia of the beast, to be opposed to the parousia 
of the Lord,’ dare be sought the less as the expression παρουσία is lacking in 
the Apoc. — briefly comprehends what was previously described in such a 
way that also the last end of the beast again coming forth might be desig- 
nated therewith (καὶ μέλλει ἀναβ. ---- ὑπαγει). Finally, the important point of 
the interpretation — which, of course, is not itself without mystery, but is 
given after the manner of xiii. 18, because of which, also, just as, there, the 
allusion (ver. 9) is justified, in that it here pertains to an understanding 
endowed with wisdom — recurs for the third time in ver. 11, where, notwith- 
standing the more minute determination that the beast is to return in the 
person of a true king, yet the identity of the subject is unmistakably desig- 
nated by the formulas ὃ ἣν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν and καὶ εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει. That 
explanation, therefore, is utterly mistaken, which understands the beast 
(ver. 11) differently from in ver. 8 (and ver. 8); in no way is the distinction 
possible that τὸ θηρίον is at one time Satan himself, and directly afterwards 
antichrist.6 For the more accurate explanation of the subject; see on vv. 
10 and 18. In phraseology, the genitive βλεπόντων in ver. 8 is remarkable. 


1 Cf. De Wette. 4 Cf. xiii. 3, 8, 12. 
2) Cio xv cls 5 Beng. 
3 Cf. the καὶ εἶπεν μοι ὃ ayy., ver. 7. 6 Against Beda, Andr., etc. 


CHAP. XVII. 7-14. 433 
Entirely Gieaaiat is the construction neither of Luke viii. 20,— where the 
absolute gen. λεγόντων is in meaning construed with the impersonal ἀπηγγέλη, 
—nor of Matt. i. 18,1 where the absolute genitive construction μνηστευθείσης 
τῆς μητρός precedes, and then, by a variation of construction, the subject is 
derived entirely from the first member (εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα), which is not 
modified by the parenthetical limitation πρὶν 7 συνελθεῖν avrove. In this pas- 
sage, however, the definite subject οἱ κατοικοῦντες precedes, and the clause Bier. 
τ. θηρ. explains what is predicated of those κατοικοῦντες (θαυμασθήσονται), SO 
that, according to the symmetry of the construction, only the nom. βλέποντες 
can be expected; but the gen. is occasioned by the gen. parenthetical clause 
ὦν, «.7.A., even though it dare not also be said that the βλεπόντων, x.7.2., is 
expressly construed into the relative clause.2_ The nearest indication given 
within ch. xvii., — which is also in harmony with ch. xiii.,— for the under- 
standing of what is said concerning the beast in ver. 8 (and ver. 11), lies in 
ver. 9 sq., where the seven heads of the beast are interpreted: “ The seven 
heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth, and there are seven 
kings.” The seven heads, therefore, which in xii. 3, xiii. 1 sqq., — where 
they appeared adorned with crowns,—=indicated royal sovereigns, receive 
here a twofold reference:* thereby both seven mountains and seven kings 
are to be understood. In connection with the heads appearing here without 
crowns, the first reference is without difficulty; while the other to the seven 
kings, which indeed is not indicated here by crowns, nevertheless finds an 
essentially identical foundation with xiii. 1 sqq. in the description of the 
regal magnificence of the woman who sits upon the beast with seven heads. 
But at the same time, the reference to the seven mountains on which the 
woman sits serves to interpret the mystery of the woman and of the beast; 
for if, by the woman, the city mistress of the world (ver..8), of the Gentile 
empire forcing all inhabitants of the earth beneath her, be meant, and this 
city is designated as lying on seven hills, this significant point of the inter- 
pretation can be referred only to “the seven-hilled city,” to Rome, just as 
what is said (vv. 8, 10, 11) concerning the relations of the βασιλεῖς, in com- 
plete harmony with xii. 3, xiii. 1 sqq., applies only to the Roman rulers 
of the world. Mysteriously, therefore, as this interpretation sounds, yet 
the first reference of the seven heads to the seven well-known mountains 
has been made prominent with the manifest intent to actually attest the 
interpretation promised in ver. 7.— Accordingly the seven hills are not 
themselves taken into further consideration; the interpretation stops (ver. 
10 sq.) with the seven kings. The transferal, already mentioned on xii. 3 
and xiii. 1 sqq., of the textual idea of seven βασιλεὶς, 1.6., of seven persons 
who possess a kingdom, and that, too, the dominion of the world, to that of 
seven kingdoms or phases of the dominion of the world, depends, in Andr. 


1 Cf. Winer, p. 195. 2 Cf. De Wette. symbolically, as a designation of kingdoms or 


3 On the Hebraistic combination of the rela- 
tive ὅπου with the demonstrative ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν, cf. 
xii. 6, 14. 

4 Incorrectly, Hengstenb. : ‘*‘ The mountains 
are here, as everywhere in the Apoc., meant 


reigns; so that consequently, by the one sym- 
bol, that of the heads, only another symbol, 
that of the mountains, is symbolized, and so 
that what is properly meant, viz., βασιλεῖς ἑπτά, 
should be designated. 


434 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


and Beda, as well as in Hofmann, Ebrard, Hengstenb., and Auberlen,! upon 
the presumption that the “temporal-historical ” explanation of Hammond, 
Grot., Wetstein, Eichhorn, Ewald, Liicke, De Wette, Bleek, etc., removes 
the biblical conception of Apocalyptic prophecy.? That this opposition is 
justified in one chief point, has been already referred to on xiii. 3; but 
exegetically incorrect, and without foundation in a further theological 
respect to the idea of prophetical inspiration, is the opposition to the ac- 
knowledgment of the fact that the entire force of the context allows the 
βασιλεὶς to be regarded only as concrete personalities, and then, that the form. 
in general of the antichristian world-power hovering before the prophetic gaze 
is that of the heathen-Roman Empire. The first has been correctly under- 
stood, e.g., by Coccejus, whom Auberlen certainly will not accuse of the 
“ temporal-historical ” exposition of the Apoc., and has turned it to the ad- 
vantage of his “ ecclesiastical-historical ” exposition: “ The seven kings,” says 
Coccejus, “are the primates of the churches of Alexandria, Jerusalem, An- 
tioch, Constantinople, Rome, France, and Spain.” On the other hand, how- 
ever, many “temporal-historical” expositors cross over into the sphere of 
the “ ecclesiastical-historical,” by finding, especially in vv. 12, 16, predictions 
concerning the incursions of the Goths, etc. That the βασιλεῖς ἑπτά are 
actually, as the expression declares,’ seven persons invested with the βασιλεία, 
results especially from the description, ver. 10 (οἱ πέντε --- ὁ εἰς ---- ὁ ἄλλος), and 
most of all from ver. 11, since here the entire sense depends upon the fact 
that the still future eight kings are contemplated as the human-personal 
manifestation of the whole beast. — Five of the seven kings “are fallen,” 
i.e., dead; “the one,” therefore the sixth in the series, “is,” i.e., he at 
present possesses the βασιλεία; “the other,” therefore the last of the seven, 
“is not yet come,” he is not yet in possession of the βασιλεία, he has not yet 
made his appearance as βασιλεύς : but he shall come as the seventh, “and 
when he cometh,® he must continue a short space;” i.e., his dominion shall 
soon come to an end.* But the seventh is followed by yet another, the 
eighth (ver. 11), who cannot be symbolized by a particular head on the 
beast,’ because, although connected with the seven (ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν), yet he 
has a different position from all those; he is not as one in their series, but 


1 Hofm. and Ebrard enumerate Assyria, 
Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, Antiochus Epiph., 
as the five fallen, the Roman as the present 
sixth kingdom. MHengstenb. and Auberlen 
enumerate as fallen, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, 
Persia, Greece; they also regard the present 
sixth kingdom as the Roman. At all events, 
in order to correspond somewhat better with 
the text (Luthardt), besides the first five king- 
doms, their representative sovereigns may also 
be named (Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Cy- 
rus, Alexander the Great, Antiochus Epiph- 
anes). But already in the sixth place, Luth. 
does not mention a definite person, but only 
‘“the Roman emperor,’ and then in the sev- 
enth period necessarily finds prefigured ‘‘ the 
present period of the European system of gov- 


ernments.” — Klief. explains upon the basis of 
Auberlen and Hengstenb., interpreting accord- 
ing to Daniel, the seven reigns as the kingdom 
of ten, with antichrist arising therefrom. This 
is the Germano-Christian kingdom of ten, by 
which the Roman Empire, wounded to death, 
is dissolved, from whose dismemberment then 
antichrist develops. 

2 Cf. Introduction, p. 32 sqq. 

3 Cf. Grot., ete. 

4 Cf. also ver. 12 sqq.: δέκα βασιλεῖς. 

δ ὅταν; οἵ. xii. 4. 

6 On the δεῖ, οἵ. ἱ. 1. 

7 Against Vitr., who maintains that there is 
a true head of a beast, and against Hengstenb., 
who (as also Klief., p. 218) in the seventh head 
finds at the same time the eighth. 


CHAP, XVII. 7-14. 435 


in his person is the embodiment of the beast himself; he himself is the one 
in whom the beast rising out of the abyss,! which now “is not,” shall again 
appear, of which also it shall then be said, just as ver. 8 of the beast as 
such: εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει, 1.e., by the judgment at the Lord’s coming, he shall 
be delivered to everlasting destruction, and thus with him, then, the beast 
himself shall perish. — Before the expressions made in vv. 8-11 concerning 
the beast and the seven (eight) kings are explained by their combination 
with one another, and with what is contained in xili. 1 sqq., the meaning of 
the phrase καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν must be established. Hengstenb.’s explana- 
tion is incorrect: “ His fate is that of the seven, viz., he must fall, he goes 
to ruin.” Too general is the explanation that the eighth — the eighth king- 
dom, as it is said —is to be of the same nature as the seven.2 But, on the 
other hand, the explanation which forms a decisive point in Ewald, De Wette, © 
Volkm., Hilgenf., and the other expositors, who in the eighth king recog- 
nize the returned Nero,’ is not compatible with the words of the text. The 
formula ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν is supposed to declare: “ He is one of the seven.” 
He has thus, and that, too, as one of the five fallen, already once existed, and 
shall return as a true king. But the more peculiar the idea, the more neces- 
sary would its unambiguous expression have been; and this would have 
been very easy to John; he would have written, according to the linguistic 
usage altogether customary with him,® καὶ εἷς ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν. The fable of 
the return of Nero, which, in its actual foundations, must be regarded as far 
removed from xiii. 3, is also here unjustified in a simply exegetical respect. 
Grot. has shown the correct way,® by explaining the ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν with a 
comparison of Rom. ix. 10; Matt. 1. 3, 5,6; Luke i. 27: “The son of one of 
them.” It is noticeable also that Andr. was led by his cultivated Greek taste 
to what is at least in a formal respect a similar explanation: ὡς ἐκ μιᾶς αὐτῶν 
βλαστάνων. Yet both explanations attempt too much by presupposing a text 
which must read: ἐξ ἑνὸς τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν. All that is correct is the acknowl- 
edgment that the formula ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά ἐστιν expresses “descent from the seven.” 
John does not lay emphasis upon the circumstance that the eighth arose 
from one of the seven,— although this is in fact correct, — but that he who 
to a certain extent, as the personification of the entire beast, corresponds to 
all seven, has himself his human-personal origin from these seven. The 
seven in their entirety are therefore contrasted with the eighth, which is 
the embodiment of the entire beast.” 

The historical illustration of vv. 8-11 depends upon the presumption 
undoubtedly given by the context from ch. xiii., ay, already from ch. xii., 
that the beast is a symbol of the heathen-Roman secular power, and that 
the βασιλεῖς symbolized by the heads of the beast are not kingdoms, but royal 
persons, viz., Roman emperors. How these are to be reckoned, is shown 


¥ Cf. σις press personality, substitute the restoration of 
2 Primas: ‘* Lest you regard him of another the dynasty of the Seleucidae. 

class, it has been added, ‘ He is of the seven.’”’ 4 Cf. xiii. 3. 

Beng. Cf. also Vitr., ete. 5 Cf. v. 5, vi. 1, vii. 18, xiii. 3, xvii. 1, xxi. 9. 
3 Cf. Hofm., who refers it to the return Cf. also John xi. 49, xiii. 21. 

of Antiochus Epiphanes; also Luthardt and 6 Cf. also Hammond. 


Ebrard, who, abandoning the idea of any ex- 7 Also against Hilgenf. 


436 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


from ver. 8 and ver. 10, with a comparison of xiii. 3. Ch. xvii. (vv. 9, 7) 
also recalls the significant distinction between the numbers seven of the 
heads and ten of the horns, even though a new application be made here 
of the ten horns. Ch. xvii., however, perfectly harmonizes with ch. xiii. 
in the description of the seven heads in themselves, and their relation to 
the beast. That the beast “that was,” at present “is not,”! and yet is, in 
so far as at present one of his heads, i.e., the sixth βασιλεύς, “is,” after the 
five βασιλεῖς “are fallen,” harmonizes with what is said in xiii. 3, that one 
of the heads was wounded to death, but was again healed. But hereby 
we reach the standpoint from which, looking backward, we enumerate the 
five fallen rulers with certainty, and at the same time, looking forward, 
can recognize the seventh and eighth rulers. The enumerations of Ham- 
mond and Grotius,? of Wetst.,? and of Rinck,‘ are, apart from other reasons, 
incorrect, partly because the subject considered is, in no way, under what 
individual emperor the Roman secular power shall for the first time be hos- 
tilely opposed to the Christians, and partly because among the seven heads, 
the three usurpers, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, indicated by horns,® dare not 
be reckoned. — The enumeration of Roman secular rulers, intended by the 
writer of the Apocalypse, is not to be determined from the first, — so that it 
could be doubtful whether the series is to be begun with Caesar’ or with 
Augustus,’ — but from the fifth and sixth, i.e., from the point of time desig- 
nated as present, in which the mortal wound of one head (viz., the fifth) 
appears healed, or in which, after five sovereigns have fallen, the sixth is 
now there. But this description® corresponds with the situation in which 
the Roman Empire was when Vespasian undertook its control, although he 
was not yet in indisputable possession of it. Wespasian is therefore the sixth 
sovereign; before him five have fallen, — Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, 
Claudius, and Nero; Titus follows as the seventh; the eighth, in whom 
the beast himself is embodied, is Domitian. | 

There is presented, therefore, in ver. 10 sqq. a prediction, which definitely 


announces beforehand certain historical circumstances. For its understand- 


1 Incorrect are all interpretations whereby 
the concrete historical references to the rela- 
tions of the Roman Empire are avoided; as, 
e.g., Andr., who by the θηρίον (ver. 8) under- 
stands Satan, and explains: by the manifesta- 
tion, especially by the death, of Christ, the 
beast is annihilaied. Cf. Beda, C.a Lap., Zeger, 
etc. —Marlorat. and other Protestants inter- 
pret: “Heathen Romeis gone; Papal Rome is 
here, but its secular dominion is in itself noth- 
ing” (οὐκ ἔστιν). Cf. Luther’s gloss: “* The 
Roman Empire is, and yet is not; for it is not 
the whole, but, since its fall, has been repro- 
duced by the Pope.’’ He interprets the ‘‘ one” 
(ver. 10) as referring to Germany; the ‘‘ short 
space,’’ to Spain; the beast (ver. 11), to Rome; 
and the ten kings (ver. 12), to Hungary, etc. 
In violation of the context, Weiss, p. 44, ex- 
plains the idea of the being, with respect to the 


not being, by the designation of the antichris- 
tian nature and power, whence then what is 
erroneous is inferred.” 

21. Claudius. 2. Nero. 3. Galba. 4. Otho. 
5. Vitellius. 6. Vespasian. 7. Titus. 8. Do- 
mitian. 

81. Caesar. 2. Augustus. 3. Tiberius. 4. 
Caligula. 5. Claudius. 6. Nero. 7. Galba. 
8. Otho. 

41. Caligula. 2. Claudius. 3. Nero. 4. 
Vespasian. 5. Titus. 6. Domitian. 7. Nero. 
‘¢ And this applies likewise as a prophetic in- 
definite ‘ one’ to the succeeding emperors until 
the downfall of the Roman Empire.” 

5 Against Hamm., Grot., Rinck. 

ial Bh ed. b sista bees 

7 Cf. Sueton., Vitae XII. Caesarum. 

8 Cf. Tacit., Ann., 1. i.; Hist.,I.i. Lticke, 
p- 839. 9 Cf. on xiii. 3. 


—--- 


CHAP. XVII. 12-17. 437 


ing,! it is to be remarked: 1. The chief points of the prediction —viz., 
that Vespasian should be succeeded by his two sons, Titus as the seventh, 
Domitian as the eighth ruler; that Titus will remain for a short time; and 
that Domitian will come forth as a personification of the entire beast — have 
developed upon the basis of temporal relations present in the prophet in 
such a way that the prophecy directed to special facts has yet nothing 
magical or mantic, but remains of an ethical nature. The natural presup- 
position and accommodation for the ethical genesis of the prophecy was 
in John the same as in Josephus, as the latter promised the government 
to Vespasian and his son Tiberius, even before Vespasian had decided to 
assume the empire.2 How extraordinarily Vespasian, and the sons of such 
men like Otho and Vitellius, were esteemed in every respect, was manifest 
already ever since the expedition to Britain: the Syrian expedition had 
still further increased the reputation and authority of the Flavians. But 
for the points of the prophecy that Titus, as successor of his father, would 
reign but for a short time, and that Domitian, proceeding from the seven, — 
a son of Vespasian, — would come forth from the abyss as an incarnation of 
the beast, the natural foundation was already present. Domitian’s insolent, 
barbarous, and imperious disposition manifested itself already during the 
Vitellian war:4 it was naturally to be expected that he would be just such a 
sovereign as he actually afterwards showed himself to be.5 John, in proph- 
esying a short reign for Titus, possibly expected what was always impending 
during his reign;® viz., that Domitian would soon dethrone his brother 
Titus, and assume the government himself. —2. John erred in the expecta- 
tion, that, with Domitian, the Roman Empire would perish. The singular 
error proves, of course, a certain imperfection of prophetic character in the 
writer of the Apocalypse, yet by no means entirely annihilates it. [See 
Note LXX., p. 386, on ch. xili. 2.] 

Vv. 12-17. The interpretation of the ten horns, also (ver. 15) of the 
waters, on which the harlot sits. In conclusion, the interpretation of 
the harlot herself, ver. 18, follows the interpretation of the special points. 
-- δέκα βασιλεῖς. Hengstenb. errs in two ways by regarding the number /en, 
which is analogous to the number seven, ver. 9 sqq., as inaccurate, and the 
βασιλεῖς, again, as reigns. See, besides, on ver. 18. — oirwec—Onpiov. The lim- 
itation of οὔπω ἔλαβον in Grot., viz., “ἴῃ the parts of the Roman Empire,” is 
more explicit than the closing words of ver. 12. The text says that the 
ten kings in general have received no dominion at all; but they obtained 
authority as kings, and that, too, as associates and aids of the beast (wera r. 


1 Cf. Introduction, p. 33 sqq., 39 sqq. 

2 Josephus, Jewish War, iii. 8. 

3 Cf. Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom., ed. Jo. Leun- 
clay., p. 736. 

4 Cf. Sueton., Domit., I. : ‘*‘ But he exercised 
the entire power of his dominion so licentiously, 
as then already to show what he was to be.” 

5 ** A pernicious tyrant,’ Eutrop., H. Rom., 
VII. 1; ‘* A portion of Nero as to cruelty,” 
Tertullian, Apo/og., ἃ. 


6 Sueton., TJit., 9: ‘‘ His brother, i.e., Do- 
mitian, not ceasing to lay plots for him, but 
almost avowedly inciting the army, he did 
venture meditating flight, either to slay or to 
banish, or to have even in less honor, but, as 
from the first day of his reign, continued to 
attest that he was his associate and successor, 
sometimes beseeching him secretly with tears 
and prayers, that he at length wished to live in 
mutual affection with him.” 


438 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


θηρ.; cf. ver. 18 sq.), for “one hour;” for they shall be immediately aban- 
doned by the Lord. The very brief duration (μίαν dp. accus., as ix. 5) of 
their rule, designated in a schematic way,! appears to correspond with the 
circumstance that of one of these kings it is said: ἐξυυσ. ὡς βασι. The 
βασιλεία of these βασιλεῖς would then appear, not as a complete sovereignty, 
but as a quickly evanescent power, which, however, because of its temporary 
greatness, is represented as one that is royal.?— μίαν γνώμην ἔχουσιν. The 
words immediately following give? the statement that the unanimity of 
these kings is intended to act in concert with the beast, and that, too, first 
of all, against the Lord (ver. 14), but then also against the harlot (ver. 16). 
— μετὰ τοῦ apviov πολεμήσουσι. Here, however, there immediately follows — 
as the reverse of xi. 7, xiii. 7—the statement that not only the Lamb, 
because he is the Lord of all lords and King of kings,* but even believers, 
shall conquer those kings. The νικήσει avr. suggests for the further designa- 
tion of subject, καὶ of μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, «.7.4.,5 the idea of a νικήσουσι5δ The three- 
fold designation, according to which the saints? appear as those who have 
been called and chosen on the part of their Lord, and have, on their part, 
maintained their fidelity,’ emphasizes the inner foundation of the victory, 


confirming the promise, and likewise calling to mind the condition of the © 


victory. , 

Vy. 15-18. By a continuation of his discourse (καὶ Aey. u.), the angel 
interprets first of all the waters where John beheld the harlot, and an- 
nounces then the judgment impending over the harlot, which, according 
to God’s decree, is to be executed by the ten kings in confederacy with the 
beast. Then, finally, the chief figure in the vision, ch xvii., the harlot her- 
self, is expressly explained. — ra ὕδατα, «.7.4. The waters form the sum total 
of inhabitants of the earth, for they all belong to the dominion of the harlot,® 
to which also corresponds the accumulation of the four expressions, Aaoi, 
ὄχλοι, ἔθνη, γλῶσσαι. 19 --- But in spite of her wide dominion ™ and all her glory, 
the harlot is ruined in a manner the least to be expected, but which only 
the more clearly manifests the judgment of God: the ten kings, together 
with the beast, shall hate the harlot and annihilate all her glory. The οὗτοι 
uo., as to its meaning, belongs to the kings to be understood among the 
horns (vv. 13, 14); these are the decisive chief subject, so that the deter- 
mination of subject, besides presented in the καὶ τὸ θηρίον, does not come 
further into consideration with respect to the form of the expression. — 
ἠρημωμένην ποιῆσ. abr. καὶ γυμνὴν. A striking antithesis to ver. 4.13 --- κι τὰς 
σάρκας αὐτῆς φάγονται. Here the idea of the form of woman is still main- 
tained,18 while in the following expression, καὶ αὐτὴν κατακαύσουσιν ἐν πυρί, the 
fundamental idea of the city is asserted. — Ver. 17 explains what is an- 
nounced in ver. 16, by the reference to God who in this way will destroy 


1 Cf. xviii. 10. 7 Cf. xiii. 7. 

2 Cf. ix. 3. 8 Cf. ii. 10. 

3 Cf. also ver. 17 9 Ver. 18. Cf. xiii. 3, 8, 12, 16. 

4 Cf. xix. 16. 16 Cf. v. 9, vii. 9. 

5 The στρατεύματα of the Lord, xix. 14, 19. 11 Cf. ver. 1: 7. μεγάλης. xiv. 8, xvi. 19. 
6 Unnaturally, Beng. : ‘‘ Those who are with 12 Cf. xviii. 16. 


him are the elect,”? who are only to look on. 13 Cf. Ps. xxvii. 2; Mic. iii. 2 sqq. 


, a 


————_ 


CHAP, XVII, 15-18. 439 


the harlot: ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἔδωκεν, x.7.A. The view here presented is very similar 
to that of xvi. 14, 16: there the spirits from hell bring the kings of the 
earth together — for the day of judgment — at Armagedon; in this passage, 
the purpose and work, on God’s part, are definitely expressed. He it is who 
has put it into their hearts to execute the will of, to make an alliance with, 
and to serve the beast. “The thought is blunted when the αὐτοῦ with ποιῆσ. τ. 
yvou. is referred to God,} instead of to the beast.?. In the connection this 
determination of subject is not absolutely too remote.2— To the ὁ γὰρ θεὸς 
ἔδωκεν, «.7.1., corresponds at the conclusion the ἄχρι τελεσθήσονται οἱ λόγοι τοῦ 
θεοῦ; the work intended bv God, for the kings confederated with the beast, 
has in the fulfilment (cf. x. 7) of the words, i.e., of the prophecies of God, 
not only its goal, but also its limits. When those kings have done what they 
are to do, they are done away with.+ 

Now (ver. 18), upon the basis of all preceding individual statements, 
the precise meaning of the harlot, which is treated of especially in ver. 1, is 
given: the woman is “the great city,” which has royal dominion over the 
kings of the earth, i.e., Rome, the metropolis, lying on seven hills, of 
the heathen-Roman Empire symbolized by the beast. 

This exegetical result so undoubtedly forces itself upon us, that neither 
the misunderstanding of Auberlen, who regards the harlot as the woman of 
ch. xii. degenerated, nor the old Protestant explanation, which, in a more 
direct way, found here a reference to the Pope and Papal Rome,‘ nor the 
singular opinion of Ziillig, who regards the city, ver. 18, as Jerusalem,? 
needs any further refutation than that furnished by the exposition of ch. 
Xvii. in connection with ch. xii. sqq. Especially, also, that ver. 12 sqq. 
cannot refer to the pressure of the Goths or other Germano-Sclavic nations, 
as Auberlen, in agreement this time with Grot., interprets, results already 
from the connection with ver. 11. The ten kings, — whom Ebrard regards 
as identified with the seven heads,—even if our exposition of ver. 10 sqq. 
and xiil. 3 be correct, can be understood neither of “the ten leaders of the 
Flavians,”§ nor of the Parthian confederates of Nero.? But after, in vv. 
3, 7, he has mentioned the ten horns, as in chs. xii. and xiii., besides the 
seven heads of the beast, and has also designated thereby the identity of 
the beast, ch. xvii., with that previously described, John now follows Dan. 
vii. 24 in his interpretation of the ten horns as ten “future” kings (καὶ τὰ 
δέκα κέρατα αὐτοῦ, δέκα βασιλεῖς ἀναστήσονται). But thereby every concrete his- 
torical relation is surrendered; just because the reference in ch. xiii. to the 
tenfold number of the horns is actually historical, no other can enter, and, 
least of all, that which actually occurs in Daniel. What is said, therefore 
(ver. 12 sqq.), concerning the ten kings, forms a feature in the Apocalyptic 
picture, derived from the Danielian model, which divests the number ten of 


1 Vulg., Hengstenb., etc. 7 In ch. xvii., Jerusalem is regarded as 

2 Beng., De Wette, Ew. ii., Volkm, Lu- Babylon; while false Judaism, under the sym- 
thardt. bol of the beast, is stated to be Edom. 

8 Against Hengstenb. 8 Wetst. 

4 Cf. ver. 12. 9 Eichh., Bleek, De Wette. Cf. Ewald, 

5 Cf. also Hengstenb. on ver. 18. who understands the Roman provincial pre- 


5 Coccejus, Calov., Vitr., Beng. fects as in alliance with the returned Nero. 


440 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


definite historical relation, as it makes it appear purely schematical, while 
the general historical presumption of John’s prophetic view — with respect, 
on the other side, to the relative fulfilment of his prophecy — lies in the fact 
that the emperors, usurping authority against and after one another, could 
gain possession of the government only through conflicts which turned to 
the ruin of the city: they were with the beast, and yet desolated the licen- 
tious city. — But “ the rulers of the last time”? are not so certainly the ten 
kings as the heathen-Roman world-empire and world-city are symbolized in 
the beast and the harlot; and it is impossible for sound exegesis to put 
under inspection a fulfilment of the prophecies in ch. xvii. still to occur at 
the end of the world. — If the ten kings be regarded more definitely and in 
combination with the eight rulers, we may, with Weiss,? refer them to the 
ten “regents” of the sovereign obtaining the government by the revolution 
of prefects (vv. 18, 17). 


1 Luthardt. 2 p. 52. 


CHAP. XVIII. 441 


CHAPTER XVIII. 


Ver. 1. The xa? before μετὰ ταῦτα (Elz.) is, according to A, B, δὲ, al. (Lach., 
Tisch. [W. and H.]), to be deleted; cf. vii. 1.— Ver. 2. Instead of ἐν ἰσχύϊ, φωνῇ 
μεγάλῃ (Elz., Ew. ii.), read ἐν ἰσχυρᾷ φωνῇ, according to decisive witnesses (Lach., 
Tisch. [W. and H.]).— Ver. 4. In favor of ἐξέλθατε, A testifies (Lach. 1846, 
Tisch.; δὲ: ἐξέλθεται; Elz.: ἐξέλθετε): but the plural may have been written 
because of what follows. According to B, C, ἔξελθε (Lach. 1850) has at least 
equal authority, although even this sing. may be an emendation because of the 
address, ὁ 4, u.— Ver. 5. Instead of the interpretation ἠκολούθησαν (Elz.), Beng. 
already wrote, according to A, B, C: ἐκολλήθησαν (x). — Ver. 6. The ὑμῖν after 
ἀπέδωκεν (Elz.) is, in accordance with A, B, C, x, to be deleted (Lach., Tisch. 
[W. and H.]). Likewise the αὐτῇ after διπλώσ., --- Ver. 7. Before κάθημαι, there 
is lacking, in the Rec., an ὅτι (A, B, Ὁ, &, Lach., Tisch.).— Ver. 8. κρίνας. So 
A, B, C, &1, al., Beng., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The κρίνων (Elz.) 
is a poor effort at interpretation. — Ver. 13. καὶ ἄμωμον. So A, C, 8, Beng., 
Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Already, in B, there is the error of an 
omission (Elz.).— Ver. 14. The σοῦ belongs probably after ὀπώρα (A, C, καὶ, 
Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), and not after ψυχῆς (B, al., Elz.) The αὐτὰ must 
stand between οὐκέτι and οὐ μὴ (B, C, Lach., Tisch.), not at the close (Elz.). 
ὃς has it before εὑρησ. (Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]). Instead of the modification 
εὑρήσης (Elz.), read, not εὕρῃς (B, Tisch.), but εὑρήσουσιν (A, C, &, al., Lach. 
[W. and H.]).— Ver. 17. ἐπὶ τόπον πλέων. So A, B, C, Griesb., Lach., Tisch. [W. 
and H.]. δὲ: & τὸν tom. The Rec. ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων ὁ ὄμιλος is an unauthorized 
interpretation. 


After, in ch. xvii., the great city has been brought to view under the 
σημεῖον of the great harlot, as the immediate object of God’s judgment, whose 
execution is now impending,! there follows a description of this judgment. 
But this is shown? to John, not in the way, as, e.g., xxi. 9 sqq., the bride of 
the Lamb was shown him, —i.e., the judicial act itself whereby the city is 
effaced, is not presented to the gazing prophet,—but the description of the 
judgment is communicated in another form. In xix. 1 sqq., this is cele- 
brated as actually completed. On the other hand, at the close of ch. xviii., 
there impends the actual] execution (vv. 21-24);? also in the centre (vv. 
4-20), the keynote of the description is future,* which is directed also here 
to the actually still-impending judgment. Accordingly, vv. 1-3 dare not 
be so understood as though the completion of the judgment were presup- 
posed, as a matter of fact, and accordingly, that the same reference must 
be made also between xvii. 18 and xviii. 1; but after a mighty angel has 


1 Cf. xvii.1, xv. 1, xvi. 21. 3 Notice the future βληθήσεται, ver. 21. 
3 χυ]!. 1. 4 Cf. vv. 4, 6, 8, 9. 


442 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


proleptically! proclaimed .the judgment now immediately impending over 
the city, as has already been done, another voice sounds from heaven 
(vv. 4-20), which first of all commands believers to flee out of the city, 
whose destruction is now to be accomplished (ver. 5 sqq.), and then describes 
how the fall of the city will be lamented by the inhabitants of the earth. 
Finally, another angel (vv. 21-24) shows, by a significant act, how quickly 
and completely the fall of the city shall be. The proper act of judgment 
upon the city, which is to be regarded as afterwards between xviil. 24 sq. 
and xix. 1, John therefore does not see; but the more complete and mani- 
fest the statement in ch. xviii., the more certainly is the promise of the 
angel in xvii. 1 fulfilled. —It is to be observed in all three parts of the de- 
scription (ch. xviii.), how not only the whole is penetrated by an agreement 
with O. T. models, but also, especially, how, after the manner of the ancient 
prophets, the threat of judgment is not expressed without repeated allusion 
to the guilt of sin, whereby the just wrath of God is called forth.? 

Vv. 1-8. ἄλλον ἄγγ. καταβαίνοντα, x.7.A. The ἄλλον distinguishes this angel 
—which can be neither Christ,? nor the Holy Ghost,* nor Luther ---- from 
the one mentioned last. Beng. improperly refers the ἄλλον also to κατα-᾿ 
Gaivovra, as though this angel, coming from heaven, were contrasted with 
the one mentioned in x. 1; but there, as here, the καταβ. is an attributive 
determination to the idea of the subject ἄλλ. ἄγγ. ---- ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην. 
The visible sign of this great plenitude of power is described immediately 
afterwards: x. ἡ γῆ ἐφωτίσθη ἐκ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, Without any more specific state- 
ment as to in what way this δόξα has come to manifestation.7?. But for the 
exceedingly important proclamation which is announced in ver. 2 sqq., an 
exalted angel is prepared, who, with the brilliancy of his heavenly glory, 
shines forth over the whole earth (ver. 2: ἔκρ. ἐν ἰσχυρᾷ φωνῇ),8 and cries with 
such a mighty voice that his message resounds throughout the whole earth,® 
as far as the dominion of the city that has incurred the judgment extends. 
— ἔπεσεν, cf. xiv. 8. ---- ἐγένετο κατακοιτήριον δαιμόνων ---- μεμισημένου. In the sense 
of Isa. xiii. 22, xxxiv. 14 sqq., and Bar. iv. 35, it is rendered clear, that the 
stately city shall be entirely desolated. On the φυλ. παντ. ὀρνέου, «.7.A., οἵ. 
Jer. 1. 39; Zeph. ii. 14; Ps. cii. 7. Even in respect to the description 
(ver. 2), the allegorical exposition has been attempted; even Ebrard under- 
stands the “birds” spiritually. — The expression φυλακὴ signifies that the 
desolated κατοικτῆριον is one received involuntarily, a prison.1°— ὅτι, «.7.2. 
Declaration of the guilt of sin as the foundation of the judgment.+!— καὶ οἱ 
ἔμποροι, «7.4. Not only is the sin of godless, gluttonous, and arrogant wan- 
tonness punished,}? but at the same time the contrast is marked between the 
complete desolation and the former wantonness which had within reach such 
means that the merchants of the whole earth were thereby enriched.48 The 


1 Cf. xi. 15-19, xiv. 8. 7 Cf. x. 1, i. 14 sqq. 8 Cf. v. 2. 
2 Cf., already, xiv. 8, 15 sqq., xvi. 5, 19. 9 Ver. 2: Exp. ἐν ἰσχυρᾷ φωνῇ. Cf. ν. 2. 
3 Calov., Hengstenb. 10 ij. 10, xx. 7; Beng., Hengstenb. 

4 Coccejus, Vitr. 11 Cf, xiv. 8, xvii. 2. 

5 Nicolai, ete. Cf. Calov. 12 Cf, vv. 7, 9. 


6 xvii. 1, 7, 15. 13 Cf. vv. 11, 23 


CHAP. XVIII. 6-8. 443 


ἐκ τῆς δυνάμεως τ. στρήν. doe8 not mean “because of the abundance of luxury,” 1 
also not “because of their great wantonness,”? but refers to the wantonness 
exercised with respect to the vast resources of the state.® 

Vv. 4-20. Another voice from heaven — scarcely that of God or Christ,* 
because the discourse extending until ver. 20, and even presenting from 
ver. 9 the grievance of another, is not appropriate to the mouth of God or 
Christ, but of an angel, who ® speaks in the name of God — first of all com- 
mands those who belong to the people of God to leave the city given over 
to destruction: iva μὴ συγκοινωνῆσατε, «7.4.8 The ἁμαρτίαις aiti¢™ is not to be 
taken by metonymy for the punishments of sin;® but the idea 15,3 that fellow- 
ship in the sins of the city, which indeed is not a fellowship of guilt, yet 
will be a fellowship of punishments (κ. é 7. πληγῶν, κιτ.λ.). [See Note 
LXXXIL., p. 449.] For the idea that God's believers, whether under com- 
pulsion,?° or in consequence of an increased temptation,! could actually share 
in the sins of the great city, is here scarcely justified, since the judgment 
unmistakably befalls them. Believers would share in the destruction occur- 
ring because of the sins of the city, which now (ver. 5) have reached the 
highest limit: ὅτι ἐκολλήθησαν, «.7.A., i-e., the sins—not the cry thereof — 
have accumulated to so monstrous a degree that they reach even to heaven.!2 
On the expression κολλᾶσθαι — ἄχρι τ. οὐρ., literally belong even to heaven, cf. 
Bar. 1. 20,18 Ps. lxiii. 9,14 and similar examples in Biel, Thes. — ἐμνημόνευσεν, 
cl. xvi.-9- 

Vv. 6-8. Now the one speaking in God’s name 15 turns to those who are 
to execute his judgment of wrath upon the great city: ἀποδότε αὐτῇ, κιτ.λ. 
She is to be rewarded,!¢ and that, too, doubly; 17 i.e., she is to suffer for her 
sins, now the corresponding, entirely complete punishment; and just as she 
had glorified herself, and lived in arrogant wantonness, so is there now 
much pain and sorrow to be given her.18 The determination of the degree 
(ver. 7), 60a— tocodror,}® which expresses the idea of strict justice, throws the 
true light upon the more rhetorical presentation in διπλώσατε, διπλᾶ, διπλοῦν. 
Even at the beginning (ἀπόδοτε, «.7.4.), the equality of guilt and punishment 
was designated; the very expression ἀπέδωκεν is explained by the fact that 
it is to correspond to the ἀπόδοτε αὐτῇ. ---- The transformation of proud security 
into the deepest sorrow represented in striking antithesis (ver. 7a) is further 
intensified by what succeeds in ver. 7) and ver. 8. As the foundation of 
the ὅσα ἐδόξασεν, the arrogant speech which the woman carries in her heart, is 
stated: she boasts, because of her sovereignty over the world,”! that “she 


1 Ewald. 12 Cf. Ez. ix.6. Beng. 

2 De Wette, Hengstenb. 13 ἐκολλήθη εἰς ἡμᾶς τὰ κακὰ. 

3 Cf. also Andr., Grot., Vitr. 14 ἐκολλ. ἡ ψυχή mov ὁπίσω σον. 

4 Beng., Hengstenb. 15 Cf. the final formula, ver. 8. 

δαὶ he 16 Cf. xvi. 5 sqq., xiv. 8 sqq., xi. 18. 

6 Cf. Jer. li. 6, 9, 45. 17 Cf, Tea. xi. 2. 

7 Cf. ver. 5, ai auapr. and τ. ἀδικήμ. αὐτ. 18 Cf, Am. viii. 10. 

8 Beng., De Wette. 19 On the form of the expression, cf. Rom. 
9 Cf. Gen. xix. 15. Hengstenb. vi. 10; Gal. ii. 20. 

10 Ew. ii. 20 ὡς καὶ αὐτὴ awed. Cf. xiv. 10. 


11 Luthardt. 21 Cf. xvii. 18, 


444 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


is enthroned as a queen,! not as a widow,” but, as a prolific mother, she is 
the mistress of many cities? and nations,’ and is confident that she “shall 
never see sorrow,” i.e., learn to know it by experience,* especially by the 
death of her children.6 But in sharp contrast with this confident pride is 
opposed the threatening occasioned by it:® on “one day’*” shall her plagues 
come, and that, too, not only “death,” which makes her a widow, but also 
~ ©mourning,” which she thought that she would never experience, and hunger, 
instead of her inordinate luxury. —kal ἐν πυρὶ κατακ. Cf. xvii. 10. --- ὅτι 
ἰσχυρὸς, x.t.A. The pledge for the infallible execution of the threat; οἵ. i. 8.8 
-- ὁ κρίνας αὐτὴν. Incorrectly interpreted by the poor var., κρίνων. For the 
judgment is already fulfilled to such an extent that in the threat just 
expressed, the punishment on the part of the judge is already determined. 

Vv. 9-20. Now the kings and other inhabitants of the earth lament for 
the rash pride of the great city, whereby they also are painfully affected.® 
Yet in vv. 11 and 17, a similar change in form of statement occurs, as in 
xi. 11 compared with xi. 7. 

Ver. 9 sq. The lament of the kings of the earth.° Cf. xiv. 11. The 
βασανισμός of the city, through which they are affected by the judgment, is 
its actual πυρῶσις.1} Accordingly the lamenting kings stand at a distance: 
they dread the conflagration in which the city perishes.12 — Οὐαΐ, οὐαί. With 
the διπλώσατε, ver. 6, the repetition of the cry of woe, which corresponds only 
to the extremity of the pain,!* has nothing to do.14*— ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη, K.7.A. 
The allusion to the greatness and power of the city 15 makes still more 
forcible the impression of its destruction, which is expressly designated as 
the reason for the lamentation (ὅτι, «.7.2.). 

Vv. 11-16. The lament of the merchants. — κλαίουσιν καὶ πενθοῦσιν. ---- By 
the present, John passes over to the tone of narration ; 16 but does not choose 
here as yet the preterite,!” so that he still does not express the idea that he 
himself had observed the destruction of the city, or the accompanying lamen- 
tations. The easier afterwards is the return to the original course (ver. 15); 
but the recent transition to the narrative brings finally with it also the pre- 
terites (ver. 17 sq.). — τὸν youov. The cargo.18 — The entire description of the 
many precious things, for which the merchants can no more find purchasers, 
gives a view of the previous necessities of the luxurious? city. The mass of 
different things are mentioned with suitable grouping —onpixov. Silk.?°— 
καὶ πᾶν ξύλον θύϊνον, x.7.A. The alternation of accusatives and genitives depend- 
ent upon the τὸν γόμον until the close of ver. 13, which is here presented very 


1 Cf. Isa. xlvii. 7. 11 Cf. 1. 15. 
2 Cf. xvii. 5. 12 Cf. ver. 15. 
3 Cf. Isa. xvii. 8. 13 Cf. vv. 16, 19. 
4 John viii. 51 sqq. 14 Against Hengstenb. 
5 πένθος, lamentation for the dead. Cf. Gen. 15 Cf. ver. 11 sqq., xix. 21 sq. 
xxvii. 41, 1. 10 sqq.; Am. viii. 10. Ew. ii. 16 De Wette. 
6 διὰ τοῦτο, like the ancient prophetical 12 17 Cf. xi. 11. 
e.g., Mic. ii. 2, iii. 61; Am. iii. 11, v. 18, 16. 18 ‘Acts xxi. 3. Cf. Eustath.in Wetst.: φόρ- 
7 Cf. Isa. xlvii. 9. TOS νηὺς, ὃ καὶ γόμος. 
8 Am. iv. 18, v. 27. 19 Ver. 3: τ. στρήνους αὖτ.; vv. 7, 9. Cf. 
9 Cf. Ezek. xxvii. xvii. 4. 


PORT Oh ie. <9) Ba 20 Cf. Winer, Rwb., on this word. 


* 


CHAP, XVIII. 11-16. 445 


definitely, may serve as an explanation of the ambiguous construction, 
xvii. 4.— The precious, sweet-scented thyine wood,! the “citreum” of the 
Romans, comes from the tree called θύον, Gia, θύϊα, which is possibly identical 
with the white cedar (cupressus thyioides).2— The expression πᾶν ξύλ. 60. 
designates, first of all, the collected precious material;* upon this follows 
the enumeration of the vessels made from the precious material, under which 
is ox. ἐκ ξύλου τιμ. ---- κινάμωμον. Cinnamon.4—duwpyov. The precious hair- 
ointment procured from an Asiatic shrub.5— σεμίδαλιν. Finest wheat-flour, 
“ simila”® or “ similago.” 7 —xrjvy. ‘The general expression, which includes 
also horned cattle,’ precedes. — ῥεδῶν. A kind of four-wheeled vehicle.® 
Alexander Sev. furnished the Roman senators with such vehicles, decorated 
with silver, — “ thinking that it pertained to the Roman dignity, that sena- 
tors of so great a city should be carried therein.” °— σωμάτων, 1.6.) slaves, 
σώματα δοῦλα 11 See examples from the LXX. in Biel.!* The following ex- 
pression ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων 18 also points to the slaves, and because of the differ- 
ence in the construction — the γόμον being understood with the genitive — it 
seems that a distinction is intended to be made.!4 The most probable 15 
explanation is that which understands the σωμ. as referring to such slaves 
as belong to the horses and chariots, and the latter expression, ψυχ. ἀνθρ., as 
referring to slaves in general. So, too, in ver. 17, Ew. ii. understands, in 
the last place, female slaves. Volkm., who gives a false emphasis to the καὶ 
before ψυχ. ἀνθρ.,15 finds here the judgment given by the Christian spirit, 
that transactions in the slave-trade are not concerning the “bodies,” but 
the “souls,” of men. But it is nevertheless correct, that, according to the 
heathen view, the slaves are considered only as σώματα; the ψυχ. ἀνθρ. also 
receives a certain importance from the fact that it concludes a short para- 
graph. Yet the explanation of Volkmar, with respect to the change of con- 
struction, seems to me impossible. — The lamentation in ver. 14 17 turns to 


1 Luther. 

2 Cf. Wetst. and Winer, Rwbd., on the word. 

3 Against De Wette: * All sorts of vessels 
made therefrom.” Cf. Hengstenb. 

4 Luth. Cf. Winer, Rwb., on this word, and 
Zimmt. 

6 Plin., H. N., xii. 28. Cf. Martial, viii. 77: 
‘« Assyrio semper tibi crinis amomo splendeat”’ 
[May thy hair always shine with the Assyrian 
amomus]. See Wetst. 

6 Vulg. 

7 Cf. Plin., H. W., xviii. 20: ‘‘ Similago ex 
tritico fit laudatissima.” 

8 See lexicons. 

9 Isidor., xx. 17. 

10 Lamprid. in Wetst. 

11 Pollux, III. 71. 

12 Cf. Wetst., Wolf, etc. 

13 Ezek. xxvii. 15. Cf. 1 Chron. v. 21. 

14 Cf. Wetst., who refers the ψυχ. ἀνθρ. to 
gladiators; Ziill., who refers σώμ. to proper 
slaves, Ψψυχ. avép. to such as are hired also 
for lust. 


15 Cf. Beng., Ewald, Hengstenl. 

16 «* Ave, souls of men.” 

17 Vitr. has thought, with Beza and Laun., 
that ver. 14 belongs not to this place, but be- 
tween vv. 23 and 24. Ew. i. regards the verse 
as a marginal note of John, who did not imme- 
diately find a suitable place for the thought. 
Ew. ii. concedes it to be possible, that the verse 
is here derived from an entirely different book; 
but if it belong to the Apoc., he would intro- 
duce it in the midst of ver. 23. Cf. also 
Volkm. But even though the form of the 
address giving offence could not be under- 
stood as the lament of the merchants, — this 
does not follow until ver. 15 sqq., in a manner 
corresponding to ver. 10, — it must be decided, 
nevertheless, that the interpreting angel 
(Bleek), or the voices interposed in ver. 4, 
directly address the city now lamented and 
threatened. A similar alternation in the form 
of description occurs also in ver. 22 sqq., in 
comparison with vv. 21 and 24. Cf. also Hos, 
ii. 8. 


446 ΄ THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


the objects that have served another chief class of the στρῆνος of the great 
city, daintiness and gluttony; this part of the description, by its description 
of the punishment, calls to mind the corresponding guilt of sin. —7 ὀπώρα 
σου τῆς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ψυχῆς. Excellently, Luther, who also describes, with cor- 
rect meaning, the genitive limitation to 7 ὀπώρα: das Obst, da Deine Scele 
Lust dran hatte.1— ἀπῆλθεν ἀπὸ σοῦ. In the same sense as the parallel ἀπόλετο 
ἀπὸ ood. Cf, Ps. exlii. 5. ΤΙΧΣ. -- τὰ λιπαρὰς Properly “the fat,” but its 
combination with τὰ λαμπρὰ points to the fact that the expression is to be 
taken? in the ordinary improper sense. Every thing pre-eminent and 
glorious, in its class, is finally grouped together.— The two last verses, 
which refer to the lamentation of the merchants, establish the conformity 
with ver. 9 sqq., which could not as yet be attained because of vv. 11-14; 
also in the two points that the merchants appear standing at a distance and 
raising the express cry of lamentation. The τούτων, ver. 15, corresponding 
to this, refers not only to those of ver. 14,4 but to all things mentioned by 
ver. 11,5 so that there is no reason to censure the discourse for inconcinnity.® 
---κόκκινον. That the scarlet raiment here,’ like the purple, indicates the 
royal glory of the city, is self-evident in the impression of the merchants. 
By those who neither see nor understand the scarlet beast, only such an 
idea of the woman is presupposed, as she corresponds in harmonious con- 
nection with the view of the luxurious glory of the city granted the prophet 
in ch. xvii. 

Vy. 17-19. The lament of the shipmasters, which likewise contains the 
three points of ver. 9 sq. and vv. 11-16: the standing afar off of those 
lamenting, the remembrance of the city’s former glory, and the cry of woe 
over its destruction. — On the preterite forms of statement (ἔστησαν, ver. 17, 
ἔκραζον, vv. 18, 19), from which, however, according to the plan of the entire 
description, ch. xviii., it is not to be inferred that John actually beheld the 
fall of the city, cf. on ver. 11, and the preliminary note on ch. xviii. 

All classes of mariners are mentioned, just as, ver. 11 sqq., all classes of 
merchants were indicated : “ pilots,” and πᾶς ὁ ἐπὶ τόπον πλέων, i.e., not exactly 
the “coasters,” 8 but those who regularly sailed to a definite harbor; and 
ναῦται, i.e., “mariners”? in general; and, as it is finally said, “as many as 
work the sea,” i.e., all those for whom the sea is the sphere of their calling 
and the source of livelihood; fishermen also belong to this category. On 
the expression common in the classics, τὴν θάλ, ἐργάζεσθαι, “to work the sea,”’ 
cf. many examples in Wetst. —xanviv τ. mvp. Cf. ver. 9. — The question of 
lamentation, τίς ὁμοία τῇ πόλει τῇ μεγάλῃ; is likewise a sarcastic allusion to the 
former self-deification of the metropolis of the empire.!°— ἔβαλον χοῦν, x.7.2. 
Cf. Ezek. xxvii. 30. Concerning this sign of grief, cf. Winer, Rwb., on the 
word. — ἐν 7 ἐπλούτησαν, x.7.A. The city was the place where all marine& 


1 [‘* The fruit in which thy soul had pleas- 4 De Wette. 5 Beng. 
ure.’’] 6 Against De Wette. 
2 Luther, Bengel, Hengstenb. 7 Cf., on the other hand, xvii. 4. 
3 Isa. xxx. 23. Cf. Hesych., who explains 8 De Wette. 
λιπ.: καλόν, ἔλαφρον, κιτολ. [beautiful, easy, 9 Beng., Hengstenb., etc. Cf. Acts xxvii. 3. 


etc.]. 10 Cf. xiii. 4. 


CHAP. XVIII. 20-24. 447 
with their manifold wares had found a rich and productive market; for, 
because of its precious treasures,! the city was able to become the source of 
wealth te all dealers. (ἐπλούτ. --- ἐκ τῆς τιμιότητος abt. Cf. ver. 3. — ἠρημώθη.) 
Cf. xvii. 3. [See Note LXXXIII., p. 449.] 

Ver. 20. The heavenly voice — not John,? to whom this demand is not 
well adapted — exhorts not only heaven (together with all who dwell 
therein, xii. 12), but also all who on earth belong to the Lord, to joy over 
the city thus perishing. Earthly believers— who are exhaustively enumer- 
ated by the three categories οἱ ἅγιοι, of ἀπόστολοι, and οἱ προφῆται," in which the 
most general conception precedes, and then two particular classes are men- 
tioned, because they, being first attacked by the hatred of the secular power,® 
have an especial reason to rejoice over the vengeance inflicted by God's 
judgment— are mentioned besides “heaven,” because it is intended to 
express that to the entire number of those who belong to the Lord,® the 
destruction of the city is a joyful proof of the righteousness and glory 
of their God. — ὅτε ἔκρινεν, x.7.A, This fact, upon which the lamentation of 
the inhabitants of the earth is based,? is the foundation of the joy of all the 
saints. But also in the phraseology, this diversity of relation is marked; 
the judgment of God, which the city has incurred,’ has brought about a 
κρίμα, i.e., an act fulfilled by the κρίνειν, which® is called a judgment of 
believers (xp. ὑμῶν), since this judgment executed in the city, taken upon 
her (ἐξ αὐτῆς),}9 is the justification and satisfaction of those believers perse- 
cuted by the worldly city, but now avenged on it. 

Vy. 21-24. Finally, a mighty angel in representing the impending sud- 
den destruction of the great city, by casting a great stone into the sea, not 
only in his speech explaining this symbolical act, describes, by individual 
vivid features, the transformation into desolate silence of the pleasure and 
magnificence that have hitherto prevailed, but also points definitely to the 
guilt of the city as the ground of the judgment. 

εἰς ἄγγελος ἰσχυοὸς. On εἰς in the indefinite sense, οἵ. viii. 13. The might 
of the angel is especially emphasized, because this is demanded for his 
action.11 — λέθον ὡς μύλινον μέγαν. By the comparison ὧς μύλ. véy., the greatness 
of the stone is illustrated.1* The meaning of the act 13 is described well by 
Andr., since he holds to the literal interpretation of the angel: καθάπερ, φησὶν, 
ὁ μύῦλος καταδύει ὁρμήματι εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, οὕτω καὶ ἡ τῆς βαβυλῶνος ταύτης ἀθρόον 
ἔσται καθαίρεσις, ὥστε unre ἴχνος αὐτῆς φυλαχθῆναι εἰς τὸ μετέπειτα. Here it is like- 
wise remarkable that Andr. does not see that he is led to substitute for the 


1 Cf. ver. 16. 8 Ver. 8: κρίνας αὐτήν; the aor., as in this 

2 Ziill. passage, ἔκρινεν. Ver. 10: ἡ κρίσις cov. 

3 Cf. xii. 12. 9 Cf., on the other hand, xvii. 1, where the 
ὡ 4 Cf. xi. 18. harlot was designated as the direct object. 

5 Cf. ver. 24. 10 Cf, vi. 10. 


11 Cf, v. 2, xviii. 

12 Cf, xi. 1, viii. 8. 

13 Cf, Jer. li. 63 sqq. 

14 [** Just as, he says, the millstone sinks by 


6 For critical inferences this passage is not 
adapted. With the same justice with which it 
would be inferred that John does not belong 
to the apostles, we may also conclude that he 


does not belong to the prophets. — The state of 
the case is different, however, in xxi. 14. 
7 Vv. 10, 16, 19. 


its impulse into the sea, so also the destruction 
of this Babylon shall be all at once, so that not 
a trace of it shall be preserved for posterity.’ ] 


448 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


expression ὁ μύλος, which is unusual as a designation of a millstone, that 
which is ordinarily employed, and how he correctly paraphrases the ὁρμήματιϊ 
by ἀθρόον. ---- Concerning οὐ μὴ with aor. subj., ver. 21 sqq.,2 see Winer, p. 471. 
— The description, ver. 22 sqq., which refers not only to objects of pleasure 
and luxury, but also to daily wants and natural relations of life, has the 
model of Ezek. xxvi. 13, Jer. xxv. 10,3 as its foundation; the ἐρήμωσις of 
the city (vv. 16, 19, xvii. 16) 4 is illustrated in a concrete way. — πᾶς τεχνίτης 
nao. τέχνης. The exhaustive conclusion of the category, of which several 
individual examples are mentioned. — ὅτι οἱ ἔμποροι σου, κ.τ.Δ. Very suitably, 
the discourse of the angel concludes with a definite presentation of the guilt 
of the city. This, however, is stated in a threefold way from ver. 1 on:® 
first, the unprecedented luxury in which the city had indulged, because of 
its wealth;7 then the licentiousness into which she had led astray all nations 
and kings, as she brought all the world thither to her service and to acknowl- 
edge her as the divine queen;§8 finally, her bloody hostility to the saints.® 
All three points 19 the angel emphasizes, sealing, as it were, his announcement 
of judgment with this establishment of guilt; the first, in the words ὅτι οἱ 
ἔμποροί σου ἦσαν οἱ μεγιστᾶνες τῆς yi, “ because thy merchants were the great 
men of the earth,” i.e., because they who brought thee the objects of thy 
luxurious life found in thy wealth and extravagance a source of their own 
wealth, which made them the great men of the earth; }*-the second, in the 
words ὅτι ἐν τῇ φαρμακείᾳ σου, k.7.A., Which cannot be understood as a founda- 
tion of what immediately precedes,!* but are co-ordinate with the first expres- 
sion ὅτι οἱ éurcpor, x.7.2., Since here the same object is described as in xvii. 
2, 4, and the seductive sorcery !* is in fact nothing else than the intoxicating 
wine of the harlot. The most important third point of the guilt is finally 
emphasized with especial force, ver. 24, by the change in the form of the 
discourse. Not in an apostrophe to the city, but in a judgment of firm 
objectivity, it is here finally established that in the city the blood of prophets 
and of saints, and of all those slain upon earth (for Christ’s sake), “was 
found.” In an exquisite manner the εὐρέθη indicates how the blood, which 
has been shed “upon the earth,” was reckoned “to the city.” The city is 
the capital of the entire empire, hating and murdering believers; as a 
matter of fact also, in the Neronian universal persecution, it took the lead 
of its empire. —JIn violation of the context, Ew. ii. understands the πάντ. τ. 
ἐσφ., «.T.A., Of those not Christians. 


1 Cf. Matt. viii. 32 with its parallels. 11 Cf. Isa. xxiii. 8. 

2 Also ver. 7. 12 Cf, vi. 15. So Ewald, De Wette, Hengst- 
3 Cf. vii. 34, xiv. 9, xxxiii. 11. enb., etc. Eichh. improperly regards the ot 
4 Cf. Jer. vii. 34. ἔμπ. gov as the predicate, as he besides regards 
5 Of. vv. 14, 17. “δ merchandise ’’ as a figurative designation 
6 Cf. ch. xvii. for ““ fornication.” 

7 Vv. 3, 7, 11 sqq. 13 Against Hengstenb. 

8 Cf. vv. 3, 6 8q., 9, XVii. 2. 14 φαρμακεία refers to the love-potions of the 
9 Cf. xvii. 6. harlot. Cf. Isa. xlvii. 9, 11 sqq. Ewald, De 


10 Cf. Ewald. Wette. 


NOTES. 449 


Notes By THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LXXXII. Ver. 4. συνκοινωνῆσατε ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις, 


Participation both in the sins, i.e., in the guilt, and in the punishment, is, 
however, expressly mentioned. As Ebrard and Hengstenberg note, there is an 
explicit antithesis between ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις and τῶν πληγῶν. Besides, where there 
is no guilt, there is no real punishment, except in that one case of the vicarious 
suffering of Him who assumed our guilt. The chastisements of the believer 
are not punishments, but blessings. Lange is therefore right when he takes 
exception to our author’s interpretation, and adds: ‘‘ A guiltless participation 
in punishment would certainly be akin to propitiatory suffering. Fellowship 
with the sinner, however, on an equal moral footing, without the re-action of 
discipline, chastisement, excommunication, is fellowship in his guilt. Hence 
the πληγαί are not simply strokes: they are deserved strokes. See Josh. vii.; 
Num. xvi. 21-24. 


LXXXIII. Vv. 11-16. 


Alford suggests a difficulty which he confesses himself unable to answer, 
that Rome never has been, nor can be, a great commercial city; and that this 
description, based on the lament over Tyre in Ezek. xxvii., would be better 
adapted to London than to Rome. Contrast Rome, however, with Jerusalem, 
and its relative pertinency becomes manifest. In addition, the metropolis may 
be here regarded as the impersonation of all the luxtry of the whole empire. 
The reading of chapter i. of Farrar’s Early Days of Christianity will throw 
light upon this point. 


450 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


CHAPTER XIX. 


Ver. 1. ὡς φωνὴν μεγάλην ὄχλου πολλοῦ. So already Beng., Griesb., according 
to decisive witnesses. So also λεγόντων (Elz.: λέγοντος) The reading τοῦ θεοῦ 
ἡμῶν (Elz.: κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ qu.) is also indisputable (Griesb., Lach., Tisch.).— 
Ver. 5. τῷ θεῷ. So A, B, Ὁ, 8, Beng., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The accus. 
(Rec.) is a modification. — Ver. 6. The Rec. λεγόντων (Lach., Tisch. TX.) [brack- 
eted by W. and H.] has, indeed A and other witnesses in its favor, but is subject 
to suspicion as a modification (δὲ: λεγούσων). More probable is the reading 
λέγοντας (2, 12, 16, al., Beng.); but what commends itself to most, just because 
of its incorrectness, is the nom. λέγοντες (B, 4, 7, 8, Tich., Tisch.); cf. the 
δώσωμεν in 11 (Wetst.).— Ver. 9. The art. of before ἀληθινοὶ (A, Beng., Lach., 
Tisch.) is probable; certainly the εἰσιν belongs to the close. ὃὲ) has ovr, οἱ Ady. 
μον ἀληθ. εἰσ. τ. θ., but corr. λόγ. τ. θ. dA, εἰσ; so Tisch. IX.— Ver. 12. The ὡς 
before φλοξ (Elz., Lach.) is indorsed by A, al., Vulg., but may have been 
interpolated as a modification; cf. i. 14. It is wanting in B, x, al. (Beng., 
Tisch. [W. and H.]). — The addition between ἔχων and ὄνομα of ὀνόματα γεγραμμένα 
καὶ, adopted by Tisch. 1859, and not by IX., has too little authorization from B, 
min., Syr. (against A, min., Vulg., Orig., al.). The plural alone also occurs 
(δὲ corr.; cf. also Wetst.). Why it has sometimes been regarded more suitable, 
is to be seen in Andr., who presupposes the sing. (τὸ ἄγνωστον τοὺ ὀνόματος), and 
remarks: Christ has many names if the subject be with respect to his various 
revelations; but, as to his nature, he is ineffable (ταῖς γὰρ οἰκονομίαις ὧν πολυώνυμος, 
ὡς ἀγαθὸς, ὡς ποιμὴν, ὡς ἤλιος, K.T.A.3 τῇ ovoia ἐστὶν ἀνώνυμος καὶ ἀνέφικτος,. [For 
being in his administrations many-named, as Good, Shepherd, Sun, etc., but in 
essence without name and beyond reach]). — Ver. 13. Instead of καλεῖται (Elz., 
Beng.), read κέκληται (A, B, &, al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]).—Ver. 19. 
Before πόλεμον, the art. τὸν is to be inserted in the Rec. (A, B, &, Lach., Tisch. 
[W. and H.]). 


The judgment over the great harlot, i.e., the great city, is now actually 
fulfilled.1 But just as the casting of the arch-enemy from heaven, the first 
proof of the Divine victory over antichrist, was celebrated with a loud song 
of praise,? so now also heavenly hallelujahs resound, since the first act of the 
final judgment over the antichristian powers in the service of Satan has 
been accomplished (vv. 1-8). A direct reference to the blessed fulfilment 
of the mystery of God,® the glory prepared for believers, is immediately 
connected with this (ver. 9 sq., cf. ver. 7); for the pre-requisite for the 
entrance of that glory, the conquest of the antichristian enemies, is com- 
prised already in the fulfilment. — The development of a catastrophe so long 
prepared, once begun, now, however, proceeds quickly to a still greater 


1 Cf. the preliminary remarks on ch. xviii. 2 xii. 10. εἰν δ Ὡς ἐν (" 


CHAP. XIX. 1-5. 451 


extent: the Lord himself, a just Judge and almighty Victor, goes forth 
with his heavenly hosts to the annihilation of the entire antichristian 
empire, besides all kings and nations belonging thereto; the beast from 
the sea, and the false prophet, are cast alive into the lake of fire, and the 
inhabitants of the earth are slain with the sword which proceeds out of 
the mouth of the Lord, and serve as food for fowls. 

Vy. 1-8. The ascription of praise to God on the part of those who dwell 
in heaven is made in songs, which properly now change to a far richer ful- 
ness (ver. 1 sq., ver. 3, ver. 4, ver. 5, ver. 6 sq.) than premonaly:2 

Vv. 1,2. ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν μεγάλην ὄχλου πολλοῦ. “I heard” (something) 
“like a great voice of a large multitude,” The ὡς, «,7.2.,? states, by way of 
comparison, that the sound perceived by John became as loud as though a 
great multitude of men had made their voice sound powerfully (cf. ver. 6). 
Incorrectly, Beng., Hengstenb., οὔθ. who by the 6x. πολλ. wish those named 
in xviii. 20 to be recognized. Ew. ii. refers it, just as xii. 10-12, to the 
glorified martyrs. —'AAAjAovia. The leading tone of this song, resounding 
repeatedly (vv. 3, 4, 6), is marked from the very beginning as that of an 
exalted ascription of praise. It is certainly not unintentional, that just here, 
after the complete judgment upon the enemies of God and of his believers 
has already begun, the express hallelujah is found, which does not occur 
elsewhere in the Apoc.? The fourfold repetition, however, is not to be 
pressed, at least in the sense of Hengstenb.,* because it is not the victory 
over the earth, but that over the harlot, that is celebrated. —7 σωτηρία, x.7.A. 
Cf. vii. 10, xii. 10.— ὅτε ἀληθ., «7.4. Foundation of the praise in the 
righteousness of the Divine judgments in general : 5 there follows ® the con- 
crete foundation in the judgment just fulfilled, whose justice is expressly 
emphasized.” 

Ver. 3. Further raising of the song of praise on the part of those who 
have sung in ver. 1 sqq., a sort of antistrophe to the preceding strophe.* — 
καὶ ὁ κάπνος, k.7.A. The point in the ascription of praise, referring to xviil. 8 
(κατακαυθ., cf. xviii 9,18), may accordingly enter in the form of the con- 
nective (καὶ), because the song, ver. 3, is an amplification of the ascription 
of praise, ver. 1 sq. 

Ver. 4. The twenty-four elders and the four beings, responding first of 
all by the ’᾿Αμῆν, confirming the ascription of praise just proclaimed, then 
also, on their part, expressly continue the same: ἀλληλ.9 

Ver. 5. ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου. “Out of the throne.” It does not follow that 
the voice is that of Christ who sits upon the throne.!° Beng. writes that it 
belongs to the four beasts; Ziill. and De Wette, to one of them. It may 
be referred also to the elders, because of the form of the summons (τ. 6. ἡμῶν). 


1 Cf. iv. 8 sqq., Υ. 9 sqq., xi. 15 sqq., Xv. 3, 7 ἥτις, κιτιλ. Cf. xii. 13. On the subject, 
xvi. 5 sqq. 2 Cf. iv. 6. ef. xviii. 23 sq., also xi. 18, vi.,10. 

3 Nor does it occur in the rest of the N. T. 8 De Wette, who is right in rejecting the 

4 With reference to the victory of God over arbitrary assumption of Ewald, to connect ver. 
the earth, whose sign is four. 3 to ver. 2. 

5 Of. xvi. 7. 9 Of. νυ. 8, 14, iv. ΤΊ. 

6 Cf. xviii. 23, where there are also two co- 10 Against Ewald, Hengstenb. 


ordinated clauses with oz. 11 Cf, also τ. 9. 


452 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


- τῷ θεῷ. The dat. with αἰνεῖν, which is regarded as though it were διδόναι 
aivov,1 occurs also in the LXX.? Comparison with the Hebrew text shows 
not only that the expression αἰνεῖτε τῷ θεῷ says precisely the same as the 
ἀλληλούϊα retained in the Hebrew form,’ but also that the construction of 
αἰνεῖν with the dat. has occurred where the 997 was combined with 3. In 
Jer. xx. 13, a clause so construed at any rate precedes. — πάντες of δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ. 
Cf. Ps. cxxxv. 1. — of φοβούμενοι, x.7.A. Cf. Ps. exv. 18. 

Vv. 6-8. The final chorus, which is likewise opened with hallelujah, 
passing by the judgment in which already the adorable glory of God has 
been occupied, points forward especially to the marriage of the Lamb, and, 
therefore, to the revelation of the glory of God, whereby — after all enemies 
have been judged — believers are to be beatified. Thus, therefore, the point 
carried to the full end appears in the pause in the Apocalyptic development 
marked by the ascriptions of praise (ver. 1 sqq.).— ὡς φωνὴν, κιτ.ιΔ. The 
explanation given at ver. 1 is here established by the fact that the com- 
parison is satisfied not with the ὄχλ. πολλ., but introduces still other things 
in the same sense.*— λέγοντες. The nom. stands still more out of construc- 
tion than the acc. See Critical Notes, and ef. iv. 1, v. 18. — ὅτι ἐβασίλευσεν. 
The ὅτι specifying the reason as in ver. 2. On the conception ἐβασίλ., cf. 
xi. 17. — ὅτι ἧλθεν ὁ γάμος του dpviov. As the foundation of the present joy, 
this is likewise to be understood proleptically, like the ἦλθεν, xi. 18.5 So, cor- 
rectly, De Wette.® Vitr. is mistaken in his opinion of the state of affairs 
described, as he even states that the expression ὁ γάμος τοῦ dpviov is synony- 
mous with τὸ δεῖπνον τοῦ γώμου τ. dpv., in order that both may in the same way? 
refer to the glorious state of the Church still to be expected within this 
temporal life. In the directly opposite interest, Ziill. reaches the statement 
that ὁ γάμος τοῦ dpviov is like τὸ δεῖπν. τ. γάμ. τ. dpv., and that both expressions 
designate, not the future marriage itself,8 but “the preliminary festival of 
the Messiah’s marriage,” i.e., the one thousand years’ reign.® But the mar- 
riage of the Lamb with his bride, i.e., the entire assembly of believers,?® is, 
in fact, nothing else than the distribution of the eternal reward of grace 
on the part of the coming Lord to his believers, who then enter with Him 
into the full glory of the heavenly life.! What the final promises of the 
epistles, chs. ii. and iii., proclaim under various figures with respect to 
individuals,!? is represented as pertaining to the entire Church as the bride 
of the coming Lord, under the figure of the marriage of the Lamb, and, 
therefore, as the most intimate and eternally uninterrupted fellowship with 
Him who has redeemed the Church with his own blood.!* An application to 
individuals follows also in ver. 9. The proleptical (ἦλθεν, ἡτοίμασεν, ἐδόθη) 


1 Luke xviii. 48. 6 Cf. also Hengstenb. 

21Chron. xvi. 36, xxiii. 5; 2 Chron. xx. 7 Cf. xxi. 9 sqq. 
19; Jer. xx. 13. 8 xxi. 9 sqq. 

3 Cf. Hesych., who very accurately explains 9 xx. 4 sqq. 
ἀλληλ.: alvos τῷ ὄντι θεῷ, αἰνεῖτε τὸν κυριον 10 xxi. 9. xxii.17. Cf. ΧΙ ἘΣ Isa. liv. 1 sqq.; 
[‘‘ Praise to him that is God, praise ye the Hos. ii. 19 sq.; Ezek. xvi. 7 sqq.; Eph. v. 25. 
Lord”’]. 11 Cf. xi. 18, xxii. 12. 

4 Cf. i. 15. 12 Cf. especially iii. 20. 


B Of; Xiv.. Te 33 ΟἿ, ν. 6, 9, νἱϊ. 17, Xiv: 1. 


CHAP. XIX. 9, 10. 453 


allusion to the blessed fulfilment of the mystery of God,! that has now not 
yet, in fact, occurred, is here the more suitable in the mouths of the heavenly 
beings, since, in fact, an act already of the final judgment — viz., the destruc- 
tion of the great harlot —has been executed, and, consequently, the actual 
beginning of that fulfilment has been made. —7 γννὴ air. The expression 
is entirely appropriate to the bride,? so that the alteration 7 νύμφη αὐτ.8 
appears groundless. — ἡτοίμασεν ἑαυτὴν. AS becomes the bride who with joy 
awaits the coming of her bridegroom. An important part of her is expressly 
emphasized in ver. 8, in conformity with the figure καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῇ, «.7.A., and 
then interpreted by John, τὸ γὰρ βύσσινον, x.7.A.— On ἐδόθη αὐτῆ iva, cf. vi. 4. — 
Bios. λαμπρὸν καθαρόν. Excellently, Grot.:‘ You see here the dignified garb, 
as that of a matron, not ostentatious, like that of the harlot previously 
described.” That really distinct references are intended by λαμπρόν and 
καθαρόν," is not to be inferred at all events from the interpretation that fol- 
lows. Cf. also vii. 14. Meanwhile, it is in itself correct to distinguish the 
negative innocency of the life from the positive practice of virtue. —7ra 
δικαιώματα τῶν ἁγίων ἐστίν. Cf. a similar interpretation, v. 8. The form of 
the expression,® and the real parallel,’ suggest only just deeds in which the 
saints have maintained their fidelity. On the contrary, Ew. ii.:* decla- 
ration of righteousness; also Meyer, on Rom. v. 16: the divine sentence of 
justification which the saints have received. But the plural form resists 
this mode of exposition, which, so far as the subject itself is concerned, 
refers to the writer of the Apocalypse a thought of so peculiarly a Pauline 
stamp as does not occur elsewhere in the Apoc. Of course, an allusion to 
the grace bestowed by God, as the ground and source of the δικαιώματα 
belonging to the saints, is contained in a delicate way in the ἐδόθη αὐτῇ iva, 
κιτιλ.; but just this reference to the Divine giving prevents us, on the other 
hand, from defining the δικαιώματα as a Divine activity, but allows us to 
think only of the just deeds of saints.2 In this result Gebhardt? and Klief. 
also harmonize. [See Note LXXXIV., p. 461.] 

Vv. 9,10. The significance of the short interlude lies in what the angel 
says to John (ver. 9), by applying in express exhortation,!° the reference 
contained already in the ascription of praise of the heavenly beings, to the 
goal of all the hopes of believers, and emphatically confirming the consola- 
tory certainty of the hope thus set before believers, by the assurance that 
this word of God is true. Also to the prophetical declaration of this glo- 
rious hope by John, an attestation is given in ver. 10, which must confirm 
believers 11 receiving the testimony of the prophet in the hope and patience 
upon which their victory depends. —Aéy« yor. The one speaking is, at all 
events, according to ver. 10, an angel; but not “an interpreting angel,” such 
as Ewald and Ebrard think was the constant attendant of John,}!? but the 


LCi. x. Ἰ: 6 Cf. xv. 4. 
2 Gen. xxix. 20; Deut. xxii. 24; Matt. i. 20. 7 Cf. xiv. 4 sq. 
8 δ. (Cla xxi. 95 8 Cf. the ἀδικήματα, xviii. 5. 
4 Cf. xxii. 17, xxi. 2; Matt. xxv. 10: ai 9 p. 176. 
ἔτοιμοι. 10 Cf. xiv. 18. 
5 Hengstenb.: ‘The brilliant glory of a 11 Cf, i. 8, xxii. 18 sqq. 


virtuous life, and spotless purity from sins.” 12 Cf. 1.1. 


454 - THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


angel who from xvii. 1 on serves John as the communicator of the revela- 
tion.! To this points also the immediately succeeding declaration of the 
same angel (οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι, x.7.A.). — Γράψον μακάριοι, κ.τ.1.). Cf. xiv. 13.— τὸ 
δεῖπνον τοῦ γάμ. τ. cov. In a still more concrete way than ver. 7 (ὁ γάμος τ. dpv.) 
is the final blessed communion with the Lord illustrated. Moreover the 
paracletic pertinence of the discourse brings with it also the fact that it is 
not the idea of the Church as the bride of the Lamb, but that of individual 
believers as wedding guests, which enters here.? By the repetition of the 
formula καὶ λέγει μοι, the succeeding speech of the angel is especially sepa- 
rated from his preceding words, and thus receives a peculiar importance. 
If we suppose that the art. is to be read before ἀληθινοὶ, ---- which certainly 
does not serve to facilitate the construction,s—we must translate with 
Beng., Ebrard, Bleek, and Ew. ii.: “These are the true words of God.” 
The ingenious explanation of Hengstenb. (“ These words are true, they are 
words of God”), even apart from the art. before ἀληθ., is refuted by the fact 
that the εἰσίν, in any case, belongs not before, but after, the τοῦ θεοῦ. De Wette, 
who translates : “ These words are the true (words) of God,”’® appeals, in oppo- 
sition to Beng., to the parallel, xxi. 5. But there the construction of the sen- 
tence is extremely simple, since to the subj. οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι the definition of the 
predicate is added, πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί εἰσιν; but here not only the τοῦ θεοῦ, but 
especially the art. before ἀληθ., effects another relation in the entire statement. 
By means of this art., it becomes far simpler to bring together οἱ λόγοι οἱ 
ἀληθινοὶ, and to understand these words combined with τοῦ θεοῦ as a predicate 
to the subject οὗτοι But the sense is by no means that which Bengel’s 
explanation suggests to De Wette,’ but after the angel has afforded John 
the revelation of the judgment upon the harlot, and, from this beginning of 
the final judgment, has given an intimation concerning the blessed mystery 
of God, which lies back of the entire judgment, he reviews all the words of 
revelation, of which he had served as the interpreter to the prophet from 
xvii. 1 on. These, he says, are the true, i.e., the genuine and right, words 
of God. The ἀληθινοί here mentions not the truth or the correctness of the 
contents, but the reality of the correlated statement: τοῦ θεοῦ. This explana- 
tion is afforded, on the one hand, by the plural of λόγοι alone, — which 
Hengstenb., as well as Klief., refers to 5-8, Ebrard to 6-8 and 9, but the 
most do not take into further consideration, —and, on the other hand, also 
by what is reported in ver. 10. Ebrard was on the right track when he 
alluded to the expression of λόγοι τοῦ θεοῦ, xvil. 17; but he wanders from it 
again, when, just as he understands those λόγοι τοῦ θεοῦ aS promises concern- 
ing the final redemption of the Church, so, in this passage, he limits the 
λόγοι of ἀληθ. τ. 6. to vv. 6-8 and 9. The latter is not entirely correct; for 
there is no reason for excluding the songs of vv. 1-5, which also refer to 
the goal presented in ver. 9, in a manner precisely identical with vv. 6-8. 


1 Beng., Ziill., De Wette, Hengstenb. 5 Cf. Ziill.: ‘‘ These true words are God's 
2 Cf. iii. 20; Matt. xxii. 1 sqq., xxv. 1 sqq. words.” 

Beng., Hengstenb. 6 Cf. xx. 5; Luke xxiv. 44. 
3 See Critical Notes. : 7 Now the truth of God’s word manifests 


4 Against Hengstenb. itself, viz., in its immediate results. 


CHAP. XIX. 9, 10. 455 


But what is said from ver. 1 on, concerning the now-impending glorification 
of the Church, has to do with but one side of the subject, with only one 
part of the Adyo τοὺ θεοῦ (xvii. 17), or of the mystery of God, announced by 
the ancient prophets.1_ This one point is made prominent also in the songs 
from ver. 1 on, only upon the ground of the judgment lying before the same, 
which is now already fulfilled in an act. As now (xvii. 17) the λόγοι τ. θεοῦ 
contain both, viz., the proclamation of the Divine judgment against every 
thing antichristian,— the kings of the world, with the beast of the world, 
are to rule only until the words of God, which proclaim the destruction 
of these same powers, shall find their fulfilment, i.e., until the dominion of 
those antichristian powers shall be annihilated according to God’s declara- 
tion, — and the promise; the λόγοι οἱ ἀληθ. τ. θ.. in this passage, refer to all the 
revelations which the prophet has received, as the fulfilment of the promise 
(xvii. 1) of the angel even now also speaking with him (δείξω σοι τὸ κρίμα 
τῆς πόρνης τ. wey.), 1.6.7) they refer to xviii. l-xix. 9. By the expression οὗτοι οἱ 
λόγοι οἱ ἀληθ., a review is made of that entire section — in which the expres- 
sions referring to the glorification of believers, xix. 1-9, are represented in 
most immediate combination with judgment upon the antichristian powers 
already fulfilled in one act — in a way precisely analogous to that of xxii. 6, 
where, at the conclusion of the entire revelation, a confirmatory reference is 
made to all that was disclosed to the gazing prophet, from iv. 1 on, as about 
to happen. But in this passage, also, such a conclusion is entirely justified, 
because here an important part of what was to happen had already happened, 
viz., the judgment upon the great harlot; and therewith the fulfilment of 
the words,” or of the mystery,? of God, had already begun. Now also there 
is given to the prophet the direct pledge of the certainty of what he has be- 
held; that these words which he has received are the actual and true words 
of God himself. From this the explanation follows as to why it is that 
John (ver. 10)* falls down before the angel in order “to worship” him. 
Ebrard is wrong in his attempt to attach a prophetic significance to this 
occurrence; viz., that the children of God are to be warned against the 
temptation of worshipping angels, “who have brought about the victory 
over antichrist.” The last is here entirely foreign. Grot., Vitr., Beng., 
etc., recognize in the adoring prostration an excessive token of gratitude, 
and therefore forbidden also by the angel.* De Wette, in accordance with 
his exposition of 90, finds here an expression of joyful astonishment at 
prophecies so confirmed (?). But partly from what precedes (Ady. οἱ ἀληθ. 
τοῦ θεοῦ), and partly from the manner in which the angel rejects the adora- 
tion as not due him, as a fellow-servant of John, it may be first of all 
inferred that John regarded the angel thus addressing him, not as a fellow- 
servant, but as the Lord himself. At first,’ John had a proper estimate of 
the angel; but just by what was said (ver. 95), John could attain the suppo- 
sition that the Lord himself spoke to him. —dépa μη. The aposiopesis® is 


ὭΣ, 72 2 xvii. 17. 6 Cf. Laun. 
> eat i 4 As also xxii. 8. 7 xvii. 1, xv. 6, xvi. 1 sqq. 
5 Cf.also Hengstenb., who, however, praises 8 Cf. Winer, p. 538. 


the humility of Johu as well as of the angel. 


456 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


self-evident from what precedes: “See that thou dost it not!” Ay, do it 
not! — σύνδουλος. Because the angel serves the same Lord! as John and all 
his brethren, “who have the testimony of Jesus,” i.e., all believers.2 The 
Lord is God; to him, therefore, belongs the adoration which John intended 
to offer to the angel (τῷ θεῷ mpooxivyoov). The ‘entire repulse by the angel 
does not therefore sound “as tender as possible, almost having the tone of © 
intercession,” + but is throughout decided. — The closing words of ver. 10 
belong not to the address of the angel, but are a remark of John, whereby 
he establishes and explains (γάρ) what has just been said by the angel. It 
is incorrect to explain the gen. τοῦ ᾿Ιησοὺ as subjective, “the testimony pro- 
ceeding from Jesus;”5 for if, on the one hand, reference to the expression 
ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτ. τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ require this explanation,® on the other hand the 
declaration is intelligible only by defining the μαρτυρία τοῦ "Ino. as τὸ πνευμα τῆς 
προφητείας. This cannot mean: “He who confesses Christ as thou dost has 
also the spirit of prophecy,”? but designates, in the sense of 1 Pet. i. 11, 
and in thorough agreement with what is indicated in i. 1 and xxii. 6, 16, 
concerning the nature and the origin of prophecy, that Christ, by himself 
imparting his testimony of revelation to a man, fills him 8 with the spirit of 
prophecy, — who now speaks from and through the prophets. As Christ, the 
coming One, is the goal of all Christian prophecy,! so is He also its author. 
From the closing words of the verse, it might be inferred," that “they 
who have the testimony of Jesus” are not believers in general, but only 
the prophets, so that the angel would call himself a fellow-servant only 
of the prophets; as Hengstenb. also (xxii. 6) understands by the δούλοις αὐτοῦ 
only prophets. But as (xxii. 6), on the contrary, the servants of God are 
distinguished from the prophets, and considered as the believers for whose 
instruction the prophets receive their revelations,!8 so also in this passage.14 
Believers do not have the testimony proceeding from Jesus without the ser- 
vice of the prophets, as John himself is one; but they are prophets because 
of the testimony communicated to them by the Lord, which testimony in 
them is the spirit of prophecy. Thus there is in ver. 10) an attestation 
to the prophetical book of John, similar to that which was emphatically 
maintained in the beginning 15 and at the close.16 [Note LXXXV., p. 461.] 

Vy. 11-21. Christ himself, as the already triumphant victor, goes forth 


we are accordingly called, as fellow-servants, 


1 Cf. vi. 11. 2 Cf. vi. 9. 
3 xxii. 6. to offices of not unequal honor.” But it would 
4 Ziull. be impossible for the concluding words of ver. 


5 Against Ewald: ‘If any one with con- 
stancy maintain faith in Christ; ’? De Wette; 
Hengstenb., Ebrard, not clear. 

6 Cf. vi. 9, xii. 17. 

7 De Wette, Ewald. 

8 Vitr. paraphrases: ‘“‘ The same Spirit who 
speaks and acts through those who proclaim 
the testimony of Christ (which the apostles 
did), is the very one who speaks through me, 
who am sent by the Lord to declare to thee 
the things of the time to come. Thy affairs, 
therefore, are as important as my dignity, and 


10 to belong to the angel (cf. ver. 8, v. 8); and 
the explanation of τ. ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν τ. 
Ἶησ., which forms its basis, is false. 

» Cf. ii. 7, 11, 17, iii. 22, with ii. 1, 8, 12, iii. 
14, 
10 Also of that of O. T., x. 7. 
11 Hengstenb.; cf. Vitr. 
ἼΣΟΥΣ ἃ. 

13 Cf, xxii. 16. 

14 Cf., besides, xxii. 9. 
15 1. 1 sqq. 

16 xxii. 6 sqq. 


/ 


CHAP. XIX. 11-16. 457 


with his heavenly hosts to destroy the secular powers still remaining; viz., 
that of the beast and false prophet (ver. 19 sq.), and the inhabitants of the 
earth rendering allegiance to the beast (ver. 21). 

Vv. 11-16. The going forth of Christ and his followers from heaven to 
the judgment. — τὸν οὐρανὸν ἠνεῳωγμένον, cf. iv. 1. The seer, at xvii. 3, in 
spirit was carried to the earth.!— καὶ ἰδοὺ ἵππος λευκὸς, ef. vi. 2. — καλούμενος 
πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινὸς. The construction of the individual expressions is also 
entirely similar to that of vi. 2. The καλούμενος placed without ἐστίν in a 
kind of apposition to ὁ καθῆμ. ἐπ’ αὐτον effects a transition to the description 
in the finite tense (xa? ἐν di. κρίνει, x.7.A.). Concerning the idea of πιστός and 
of ἀληθινός, cf. 111. 7,14. There is a significant prominence given to the 
circumstance that the one now going forth to most complete final victory is 
called not only “faithful,” with respect to his promises to his believers now 
to be fulfilled by himself, but also “true;” for it is just by his present 
triumphal march against his enemies, that he proves himself to be the Mes- 
siah announced from olden time. Hence the entire description is filled with 
tones harmonizing with the O. T. prophecies; the Lord now manifests him- 
self as the One who was truly meant in all those prophecies. — καὶ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ 
κρίνει. Cf. Isa. xi. 3 sqq. The καὶ πολεμεῖ added in this passage expresses 
the meaning of the κρένει in a way corresponding to the nature of the descrip- 
tion here presented.2— οἱ δὲ οφθαλμοὶ αὐτ., κι. Cf. i. 14. --- διαδήματα πολλά. 
If the many diadems upon his head are to be regarded trophies of victories 
already won,’ the kings, possibly the ten kings of ch. xvii.,* must at all 
events be regarded as vanquished. But the judgment upon these is not yet 
fulfilled. It might also be said that the Lord, going forth as triumphant 
victor, who also (vi. 2) receives from the very beginning a victor’s garland, 
appears here already adorned with the crowns of the kings to be judged by 
him. But the reference to ver. 16, where Christ is called the βασιλεὺς βασιλέων, 
is more probable.5 The explanation of Andr., that the dominion of Christ 
over all who are in heaven and on earth is indicated, is too indefinite. — 
ἔχων ὄνομα ---αὐτός. Either the name mentioned in ver. 13 is meant,® or 
although it was “written,””— possibly on the Lord’s forehead,’ but not, 
indeed, upon his vesture,§ or on the many diadems,?—and therefore was 
visible to John, the name remained, nevertheless, unknown to him, because 
it was inscrutable 1° To think of any definite name besides that designated 
(ver. 13), and to attempt to conjecture it, is an undertaking in violation of 
the context. The second of the two possible views is the more probable; 
for even if the ὃ οὐδεὶς eidev, «.7.4., be explained by the mystery lying in the 
name ὁ λόγος τοῦ geod,” yet the context makes the impression, particularly as 
the assertion καὶ κέκληται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, x.7.2., is separated from ver. 12 by a 


1 De Wette. Cf. xxii. 10. 7 Ewald, Bleek, Hengstenb. 
2 Ver. 14: στρατεύματα; ver. 19: τ. πόλεμον. 8 Calov. 
8 Cf. 2 Sam. xii. 13; 1 Macc. xi. 13. Grot., 9 Eichh. 
Wetst., Beng.; cf. also Vitr. 10 Grot., Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb., 
4 Ziillig. Ebrard. 
5 Ewald, De Wette, ἘΡΣΒΡΝΝΝ, Bleek, 11 Against Ewald, Volkmar, etc., who un- 
Volkm., Luthardt. derstand the name ΤΠ] Γ". 


6 Calov., Vitr., etc. 12 Vitr. 


458 | THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 

special item of the description (x. περιβ., «.7.4.), that a name is intended to 
be indicated, which is known only to the Lord himself, since He alone has 
and knows what is designated in the name.!_ But in accordance with iii. 12, 
it may be thought that the complete blessedness of believers in immediate , 
communion with the Lord (ver. 9) will disclose also the mystery of this 
name.2— καὶ περιβεβλημένος ἱμάτιον βεβαμμένον αἵματι. After the manner of the 
victor, Isa. Ixiii. 1 sqq.,2 whose prophetic description finds its true fulfil- 
ment in the Lord.4— καὶ κέκληται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοὺ ὃ λόγος τοῦ θεῦ. The form of 
the expression κέκληται τ. ὄν. avt. Shows that here ὅ the definite name, familiar 
to believers, which the Lord has received as a significant proper name,® and 
continues to bear, is intended to be designated. ‘The name corresponds to 
the position of the Lord as Mediator, as described i. 1 sqy.? Cf. also Intro- 
duction, p. 66. — 7a στρατεύματα, κιτ.2. The armies of the Lord ὃ are not only 
the hosts of angels who appear elsewhere as attendants of the Lord coming 
to judgment,® but departed believers are also to be regarded as referred 
to.1° This is indicated not only by the comprehensive expression τὰ στρατ. τὰ 
ἐν τῷ ovp., but also by the vesture (βύσσ. λευκ. καθ.; cf. ver. 8). — ῥομφαία ὀξεῖα. 
The sharp sword proceeding from the mouth of the Lord designates here, 
where, besides, it is attached to statements recalling ancient prophetical 
descriptions (iva ἐν abr. πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη),11 still more clearly than 1. 16, the Lord 
thus appearing as the true and real One who is to come (ver. 11). ---- καὶ αὐτὸς 
πατεῖ, x.7.A. Cf. also, on this definitive and, therefore, so full-toned descrip- 
tion, which gives assurance 123 of the certainty of the threat by τ. θεοῦ τ. παντοκρ.» 
Isa. ]xili. 2 sq. with xiv. 10,19. The expression τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ οἴνου, Hengst- 
enb. explains, not, indeed, accurately, by saying that the wine-press is the 
wrath of God, and the wine flowing from it is the blood of enemies. The 
form of the idea in which the two figures of the wine-press 18 and the cup of 
wrath 14 are combined,?* affirms, however, that from the wine-press trodden 
by the Lord, the wine of God’s anger flows, with which his enemies are to be 
made drunk.— The name, which (ver. 16) is written on the vesture and on 
the thigh, βασιλεὺς βασιλέων καὶ κύριος κυρίων, gives —as is made prominent at 
the conclusion of this entire description, ver. 11 sqq.—the express pledge 
of that which is distinctly marked already in the entire appearance of the 
Lord; viz., that the Lord who now goes forth to the conflict with the kings 
of the earth, will show himself to be the King of all kings. — καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν μηρὸν 
ait, The meaning cannot be that the name stood not only on the vesture, 
but also on the actual thigh, so that, after laying aside the bloody garment, 


NOE. 17. 

2 The several names indicated in the at 
least uncertain reading (see Critical Notes) 
give no clear idea. Perhaps also the plural 
6vad, πολλ. has had much to do with the origin 
of the reading. 

3 Beng., Ziill., De Wette, Hengstenb., etc. 

4 Cf. ver. 11. 

5 Cf., on the other hand, ver. 12. 

6 Cf., on the other hand, the several appel- 
lative designations of vv. 11, 16. 


7 Cf..also xix. 10, iii. 14. 

8 Cf., on the other hand, ver. 19. 

9 Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31; 2 Thess. i. 7. De 
Wette, Hengstenb., Bleek, Luthardt. 

10 Cf. also Ew. ii. Incorrectly, Volkm.: 
The earthly. 

11 Cf. Isa. xi. 4. κ. αὖτ. ποιμανεῖ, x.t.A. Cf, 
i 27, xis 5. ‘ 

a2 ΡΒ ΧΙ, Ἐνν Ὁ, 

13 xiv. 19. 


14 xiy. 10. 15 De Wette 


CHAP. XIX. 17-21. 459 
the name could appear in the same place.!_ But the explanation of Wetst., 
Eichh., De Wette, Bleek, etc., who allude to the fact that, e.g., sculptors are 
accustomed to fix the stamp of their name on the body of the statue in the 
region of the thighs, is opposed by the preceding ἐπὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον, in connection 
with which the καὶ ἐπὲ τὸν μηρὸν air. has the force, that the name, at all events, 
must be regarded as on the vesture, and that, too, where the thigh is. The 
name is, therefore, not to be sought upon an imaginary ? sword-handle,® but 
we must regard it as being upon the girdle, although this, however, does not 
come into consideration as the sword-belt,* but as a girdle which holds the 
tucked-up vesture of one advancing to battle. In violation of the context, 
Ew. ii.: “ From the shoulders to the thighs.” 

Vv. 17,18. An angel standing in the sun summons all fowls to eat the 
bodies of kings, and of all the inhabitants of the earth, who are to be slain 
by the Lord.§ ἕνα dyy. Cf. viii. 18, xviii. 21.—év τῷ ἡλιῷ, “in the sun,” 
because from this standpoint, and at the same time with the glory suitable 
to an angel, he can best call to the fowls flying ἐν μεσουρανήματι. --- Δεῦτε 
συνάχθητε, x.7.A. Cf. Ezek. xxxix. 17 sqq. The punishment is, as it corre- 
sponds to the idea of the final judgment, one that is absolutely relentless; 
since on the slaying, the consumption of the corpses by all the fowls under 
the heaven follows. — σάρκας βασιλέων, κιτΔ. The exhaustive specification 8 
expressly declares, what is self-evident also from the connection, that the 
slain λοιποί (ver. 21) are the entire mass of inhabitants of the earth.® 

Vv. 19-21. The Lord’s judgment and war are accomplished. This act 
of judgment John beholds, as it proceeds not only from the καὶ eidov (ver. 19), 
but also from the mode of representation itself (ἐπιάσθη, ver. 20; ἐχορτάσθησαν, 
ver. 21). Cf., on the other hand, ch. xviii. — τὸ θηρίον καὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς, K.7.A. 
' With the beast, representing the secular power,!® his confederates appear, the 
kings of the earth," and their armies, consisting of the entire number of 
the dwellers on earth,!* who now carry into effect the conflict proclaimed 
already in xvi. 14; }% its result, however, is described in ver. 20 sq., in such a 
way as to correspond to the significant name of xvi. 16. For the conflict 
which is to be described is not one that is painful, or as to its issue possibly 
doubtful, but the result of an unconditional victory over enemies, won by 
the justice and omnipotence of the Lord. —xk. μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος αὐτοῦ. The 
sing. is chosen here,!4 in order to mark the holy unity of the entire army of 
Christ, in contrast with the rent body of his enemies. καὶ 6 μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ wevdo- 
προφήτης. The position of the false prophet as the auxiliary of the beast is 
designated in harmony with the description (xiii. 11 sqq.). The allusion 


Volkm. Incorrectly, Ew. ii., p. 334: ‘by the 
sun.” 
8 Cf. vi. 15. 
10 xiii. 1 sqq. 
11 xvi. 12 sqq., xvii. 12 sqq. 
12 xiii. 4, 8, 16. 
13 Notice the art. τὸν moAeu.; also the συνηγ- 


1 Against Beng.. 

2 And that, too, against ver. 15. 

3 Grot. 

4 Against Vitr., also against Hengstenb., 
who, on account of ver. 15, explains that the 
name appears here in the place of the engirded 
sword; cf. Ps. xlv. 4 8q. 


® Cf. xiii. 4, 8, 14, 16. 


5 Ziill., Volkm. 
6 Cf. ver. 21. 
7 Ew. i., De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard, 


μένα here repeated. 
14 Of., on the other hand, ver. 14. 
15 Beng., Hengstenb. 


460 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


also to the peculiar function of the false prophet (ὁ ποιήσας, κ.τ.}.) points back 
to xiii. 18 sqq. — The manner in which the judgment is fulfilled is in con- 
formity with the nature of the enemies:? the beast, together with the false 
prophet, “was taken, and both were cast alive into the lake of fire burning 
with brimstone.” Who does this, is not said; but the act dare not be re- 
ferred to Christ, for the reason that he does not execute his various acts of 
judgment by his own hand.? It is evident that the victorious result of the 
war of judgment is determined by Christ’s power; but according to the 
analogy of xii. 7 sqq., we must regard the στρατεύματα of the Lord, as 
the executors of the judgment.4— ζῶντες. For only human enemies could 
suffer bodily death (ver. 21) before the eternally condemning judgment of 
the world.6— τὴν λίμνην, κιτιΔ. Cf. xx. 10, 14 sq., xxi. 8.— οἱ Aamo. See 
on ver. 17 56. --- ἀπεκτάνθησαν ἐν τῇ ρομφαίᾳ, x.7.A. To seize the enemies, and 
thus to cast them into hell (ver. 20), is not befitting the Lord himself; but 
it is something else, when the sword which proceeds from his mouth slays the 
enemies. This gives the idea of the victory entirely without laborious effort, 
and presupposing no proper conflict of Him who, according to the prediction 
of the ancient prophets, destroys his enemies with the breath of his lips.6— 
κ. πάντα τὰ ὄρνεα, x.7.A. Cf. ver. 17 sq. 

The allegorical exposition, when applied with consistency to ch. xix., 
must be regarded untenable in the degree that it arrays itself against the 
context. The fowls (ver. 17 sq., 21) are, according to Hammond, the Goths 
and Vandals, who desolated the Roman Empire; according to Coccejus, the 
Turks, who, after the capture of Constantinople, afflicted the Catholic West; 
according to Hengstenb., the Huns, who prepared grievous calamities for 
the Germanic nations, the destroyers of the Roman Empire. Wetst. found 
the prophecy fulfilled in the assassination of Domitian, the last of the 
Flavians,’ and in the conquest of his soldiers (ver. 21). Grot. understands 
by the δθασιλεὶς (ver. 19), “Julian with his nobles,” and remarks on ver. 20: 
“‘ Theodosius the Great abolished the public sacrifices of the heathen,” and 
on ver. 21: “By the decree of Christ, who used Justinian for this purpose, 
to punish idolaters with death.” Others, as C.a Lap., have thought that 
the fulfiment of the prophecy could be shown by the horrible death and 
burial of many heretics. So C.a Lap. cites authors who report of Luther 
that he committed suicide, and that at his burial not only a multitude of 
ravens, but also the Devil, who had come from Holland, appeared. — Luther, 
gloss on ver. 11: “The word of God is opposed to the defenders of the 
Pope, and none of their defence is of any avail.” 


1 Cf. Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb. 4 Cf. xx. 9 sqq., xiv. sq. 5 xx. 14 sqq. 
5. Ὁ XX~ 2 6 Cf. Isa. xi. 4. 
3 Cf. ver. 11. 7 ν. 20. 


NOTES. 461 


NoTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LXXXIV. Ver. 8. τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν ἁγίων. 


Some of the older Protestant interpreters explain the plural δικαιώματα, as 
determined by the fact that it comprises the two righteousnesses of the believer, 
the imputed righteousness of Christ and his own inherent righteousness. So 
Forbes in Poole’s Synopsis. Calov. also, upon the ground that the imputation 
of Christ’s righteousness to the believer will never cease. Others, like Cluverus, 
maintain that each saint has a δικαίωμα; and, therefore, there are δικαιώματα, 
because there are many saints. So Alford: ‘‘The plural is probably distribu- 
tive, implying not many δικαιώματα to each one, as if they were merely good 
deeds, but one δικαίωμα to each of the saints, enveloping him as in a pure white 
robe of righteousness.”’ John Gerhard (LZ. C., viii. 167) also adopts the distrib- 
utive use of the plural, although referring it to imputed righteousness. Philippi 
(Kirch. Glaubenslehre, v. 1, 252), however, concurs with Diisterdieck: ‘**‘ The 
right deeds of the saints are the robe of fine linen, to be clothed in which is 
granted them (xix. 8).”’ 


LXXXV. Ver. 10. ἡ γὰρ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ. 


Luthardt paraphrases this clause: ‘‘He who has this testimony of Jesus 
participates also in the Spirit who works prophecy, and teaches how it is to be 
understood, because all prophecy has Jesus Christ as its contents; and, there- 
fore, the knowledge and confession of Jesus Christ is the key of the future.’’ 
Cremer accordingly infers that ἔχειν τὴν wapt. ᾿Ιησοῦ (xii. 17, xix. 10, vi. 9) is 
synonymous with ἔχειν τὸ mv. τῆς mpod. Gebhard also insists on the subjective 
meaning of ᾿Ιησοῦ here, and says that wherever ‘‘the testimony of Jesus”’ 
occurs, it is Synonymous with ‘‘the word of God.” Alford, dissenting from 
Diusterdieck’s construction of ᾿Ιησοῦ as subjective, says: ‘‘ What the angel says 
is this: ‘ Thou, and I, and our brethren are all ἔχοντες τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ; and 
the way in which we bear this witness, the substance and essence of this testi- 
mony, is the spirit of prophecy; ἕν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν. This spirit, given to me 
in that I show thee these things, given to thee in that thou seest and art to write 
them, is the token that we are fellow-servants and brethren.’ ”’ 


‘ 


462 . THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


CHAPTER XX. 


Ver. 2. ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος. So A, Lach., Tisch. The accus. (B, δὲ, Elz.) 
appears to be a modification. — According to A, B, min., the art., which is 
wanting in the Rec. before διάβ,, and before σατ., but occurs in & in both these 
places (so Tisch. [X.), belongs only in the latter place (Lach., Tisch.). — Ver. 3. 
The αὐτὸν after ἔκλεισεν (Elz.) is spurious (A, B, &, al., Verss., Beng., Lach., 
Tisch. [W. and H.]). The present πλανᾷ (Griesb., Tisch.) is not sufficiently 
attested by B, and, besides, appears suspicious as an interpretation. Lach., | 
also Tisch. 1X. [and W. and H.] have properly maintained the Rec. πλανῆσῃ 
according to A (δὲ : mAavyoet).— Ver. 4. The art. τὰ before χίλ. ἔτη (Elz.) is 
properly (A, &, min.) deleted already by Beng. — Ver. 8. τὸν 764A. So A, B, 8, 
7, 8, 9, al., Lach., Tisch.; ef. xix. 19.— Ver. 9. ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, which occurs also 
in δὲ), al., before ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (Elz.), but in other witnesses stands last ( Beng.), 
while still others transpose the positions of the prepositions ἀπὸ and ἐκ, belongs 
probably (cf. xxi. 2) in no way to the text (A, 12, al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and 
H.]).— Ver. 14. Read οὗτος ὁ θάν. 6 δεύτερός ἐστιν, ἡ λίμνη τοῦ πυρός (A, B, al., 
Verss., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). The last words are lacking in the Rec. 
δὲ modifies: ovr. ὁ δεύτ, Gav, ἐστ., ἡ A., K.T.A, 


Already has judgment been executed upor. the harlot,! upon the beast 
and his accomplice the false prophet,? and upon the dwellers on earth who 
worshipped the beast; now follows the judgment upon the proper first 
enemy, Satan himself, who’ has used all those antichristian powers only as 
his instruments. The judgment upon Satan, decreed from all eternity, is 
executed in ver. 10. But previous to this, there is the binding of Satan for 
one thousand years (vv. 1-3), during which time they who are to partake of 
the first resurrection are to reign with Christ (vv. 4-6), and an attack upon 
the camp of the saints on the part of Gog and Magog, excited by Satan, who 
is let loose again for a short time, which is terminated by fire falling from 
heaven and consuming those nations (vv. 7-9); but, on the other hand, 
there is, after the final casting of Satan into the lake of fire, the proper judg- 
ment of the world (ver. 11 sqq.) at which all men appear, and they who are 
not written in the book of life are cast into the same lake of fire as that 
wherein are the beast and the false prophet already since xix. 20, into which 
Satan also has been eternally cast (ver. 10) before the final judgment of the 
world, and wherein now also at that final judgment death and hell are cast 
(ver. 14). —It is, therefore, to be noted: (1) with respect to the succession of 
the individual judgments, that this is the reverse οὐ the succession in which 
the antichristian forms are presented; for the description of the latter begins 
(ch. xii.) with the original enemy, then proceeds to the beast and his accom- 


1 Cf. chs. xvii.-xix. 2 xix. 20. 3 Cf. on ch. xii. 


CdAP. XX. 1-3. 463 
plice, viz., the second beast or the false prophet (ch. xiii.),1 and finally 
shows the woman carried by the beast, i.e., the definite city of the world 
(ch. xvii.), ay, the individual sovereigns in whom the beast is embodied 
(xvii. 11); while, on the contrary, the judgment descends first upon the 
city (xviii. 1, xix. 10), then upon the beast, together with the false prophet, 
and the mass of dwellers on earth worshipping the beast (xix. 11-21), and, 
finally, upon Satan (xx. 10, cf. xx. 4.sqq.). (2) Nor is the kind of judg- 
ment without natural distinctions: the city perishes in a terrible conflagra- 
tion, and the beast and false propheg, as well as Satan, are cast alive into 
the lake of fire of hell; while the dwellers on earth, after having suffered 
bodily death (xix. 21, cf. xx. 9), are again awakened at the final judgment 
(xx. 11 sqq.), and not until then cast into the lake of fire for eternal 
torment. 

Vv. 1-3. An angel, descending from heaven, binds Satan with a great 
chain, and casts him into the abyss for one thousand years. — ἄγγελον. The 
comparison of i. 18 cannot prove that the arigel? is Christ.8 — τὴν κλεῖν τῆς 
ἀβύσσου. The key of the abyss—which, according to the analogy of the 
in other respects not entirely conformable presentation, i. 18, is to be 
regarded as being in the hands of Christ — was “ given,” ix. 1, under par- 
ticular circumstances, for a definite purpose to another; in this passage the 
angel, who likewise needed the key for a definite purpose (ver. 2 sq.), 
brought it from heaven, where he, therefore, had received it when he was 
sent. Ew. ii. is accordingly incorrect in identifying the angel in this pas- 
sage with the one who is represented as being active in ix. 1-1l. ἅλυσιν. 
Cf. Mark v. 3 54. -- ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὑτοῦ. Cf. v. 1. “Jn” the hand,} the chain 
could not be held because of its great weight; it lies “on” the hand, and 
hangs down on both sides. — ἐκράτησεν. Vivid representation of the event. 
Cf. xix. 20. — ὁ ὄφις, x.7.4. The nominative of apposition, without construe- 
tion, is like i. 5. On the designation, cf. xii. 9; the complete harmony in 
this passage shows that now that original enemy was bound, who, after he 
had been cast from heaven to earth, became the proper originator of every 
thing antichristian in the world. [See Note LXXXVI., p.472.] χίλια ἔτη. 
The accus.® designates the length of the time during which Satan is to be 
bound. Cf. in other respects on ver. 10.— εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον. Cf. ver. 1, ix. 1, 
xi. 7, xvii. 8. The abyss of hell is the place where Satan properly belongs, 
and whence he himself, like the demoniacal powers, has proceeded in order 
to work upon earth. But since for a thousand years he will be confined 
against his will to one place,” so long is his agency on earth interrupted 
(iva μὴ πλαν., k.7.2.). —Kal ἔκλεισεν καὶ ἐσφράγισεν ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ. With ἔκλεισεν the 
object τὴν ἄβυσσον is understood; but just because this is not expressly 
added, the limitation ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ can the more readily qualify the ἐσφράγισεν: 
“upon him,” i.e., Satan, who has been cast into the bottomless pit, the angel 


1 Where also the relation of the dwellers on 4 Etym., M.: ἅλυσις, ἡ ἐκ χαλκοῦ ἢ σιδήρου 
earth to the beast is shown. ἢ ἀργυρίου ἣ χρυσοῦ πεπληγμένη σειρά [ἅλυσις 
2 Beng., De Wette, etc. is a chain forged either from brass, or iron, or 
3 Against Hengstenb., Alcas., Calov., Vitr. silver, or gold]. 
Cf. also Coccej., who again understands the 5 Ew. ii. WS reads even ἐν 7. x. 


Holy Ghost. 6 Cf. ix. 5. 7 Cf. ver. 7: φυλακή. 


464 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


“set a seal,” in order to give the greater assurance of the secure guarding of 
the one imprisoned.! — iva μὴ πλανήσῃ ἔτι τὰ ἔθνη. As he had previously done,? 
as long as unbound, he could exercise his wrath on earth. The subj. aor., 
with a future meaning,* presupposes that during the one thousand years, 
and, therefore, after the act of judgment, xix. 21, there would still be 
nations who also, at the end of the one thousand years, would be actually 
led astray. This seeming difficulty would be avoided by the reading πλανᾷ, 
which depends upon the view customary in the Church fathers, but abso- 
lutely in violation of the context, that the worldly period of one thousand 
years began with the birth or death of Christ, and, therefore, is the present.® 
— μετὰ ταῦτα ; ViZ., τὰ χίλια ἔτη. The definite numerical specification immedi- 
ately precedes, and to it corresponds also the temporal statement: μικρὸν 
xpovov, —dei. Cf. 1.1, iv. 1. 

Vv. 4-6. The one thousand years reign which begins with the first 
resurrection. The allusion to the glory to be expected in the same, which 
is at the same time the pledge of participation in the blessedness of the 
eternity to be opened with the second resurrection, is made not without an 
express emphasis of the paracletic point which lies in this goal of Christian 
hope.” — καὶ εἶδον θρόνους. The prototype of Dan. vii. 9, 22, and the κρίμα, 
expressly mentioned in this passage, show that the θρόνοι come into consider- 
ation not as thrones of kings,’ but only as seats of judges. The interchange 
of the definite idea of a judicial session with that of further dominion — 
possibly also manifested in judging —coheres with the decided misunderstand- 
ings that the πεπελεκισμένοι and οἵτινες ob προσεκύνησαν are to be regarded as the 
subjects of ἐκάθισαν ἐπ᾽ abrove, that the βασιλεῦσαι μετὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ ascribed to 
these must be esteemed synonymous with the assumed sitting of the same 
on thrones, and thus belongs to a conception of the whole, vv. 4-6, that is in 
violation of the context. Thus, especially, Augustine and his successors. 
Who they are that sit upon thrones, and to whom judgment is given, is not 
said, and hence scarcely any thing except a negative determination is pos- 
sible. According to what follows, they are not the martyrs and the other 
faithful believers who rather, by the judgment, become partakers of the 
one thousand years reign.1!_ The ἐδόθη αὐτοις forbids us te refer it to God 
himself and Christ.12_ Ew. i. refers it to the apostles,} but at the same time 
to martyrs and Christians in other respects distinguished; and Beng. to the 
ἅγιοι, Dan. vii. 22. The most plausible explanation, if the idea is at all to 
be made more definite than is presented in the text, is to refer it to the 
twenty-four elders; 16 for it is especially appropriate to ascribe the reward 
of victors to these representatives of the Church, who offer the prayers of 
the saints to God, and repeatedly testify to their blessed hope.1® [See Note 


1 Cf. Matt. xxvii. 66. 11 Against Augustine, Ziill., ete. 

2 Of. xiii. 14, xvi. 13. 8 xii. 12. 12 Against Grot., who, however, comprises 
4 Cf. Winer, p. 472. ‘ the angels. 

5 Cf. ver. 8 sq. 6 See on ver. 10. 13 Cf. Matt. xix. 28. 

@Vers6.” Cf. xiv. 13, xvi. 15. 14 De Wette, Ew. 11. ; οὗ. Hengstenb., who, 
8 Eichh., Zii!l. besides the twelve apostles, understands the 


9 Heinr., Ewald, De Wette, Hengstenb., twelve patriarchs. 
Ebrard, Bleek, Volkm. 1 See on ver. 10. 15 y. 8, 16 y, 9, vii. 13 sqq., xi. 16 sqq. 


CHAP. XX. 7-10. 465 


LXXXVII., p. 473.] καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς --- ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτῶν. They, to whom the 
κρίμα refers, are represented in two classes: the martyrs, viz., not only those 
whose souls already cry for vengeance, vi. 9, but also those additional ones? 
who have been slain throughout the whole earth by the beast, and with 
whose blood the harlot was drunken; ? and all other believers who, notwith- 
standing the persecution and threatening death, have not rendered homage 
to the beast 8 The last class of believers also (oitwe¢ ob προσεκύν, x.7.A.) is to 
be regarded, at the point of time fixed in ver. 4, as dead ;* partly because of 
the explicit ἔζησαν ; ὅ partly because of the contrast οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν, and 
the expression οὐκ ἔζησαν, applied to this death, from which a clear light falls 
upon the first ἔζησαν ; partly also because of the definite and in no way alle- 
gorical designation ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη. The meaning of the text which is 
expressed regularly in all these points is, therefore, manifestly this, that 
while “the rest of the dead” are not revived until the second resurrection 
(ver. 12 sqq.), in the first resurrection only the two classes of dead believers 
take part, viz., in order to reign with Christ during the one thousand years. 
It is just by the κρίμα (ver. 4a) that this first especial reward of victors is 
promised them.® [See Note LXXXYVIII., p. 473.] But the description of 
this glory, of this first part of the blessed mystery of God, which is fulfilled 
now for believers? after the judgment already executed upon their enemies, 
John cannot give without repeating with especial emphasis the consolation 
(ver. 6) which was united previously already,’ with the references to the 
future reward of fidelity : μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος, x.7r.A. The item of holiness here 
especially emphasized has a reference to the priestly dignity («. ἔσονται ἱερεῖς, 
k.7.4.) οὗ those who participate in the one thousand years reign;® then the 
priestly, as well as the royal, character of believers comes forth in complete 
glory.!9 — μέρος ἐν. xxi. 8. Cf. John xill. 8 (wera). — ὁ δεύτερος θάνατος. Cf. 
ver. 14, xxi. 8. They who—after they have suffered bodily death, viz., 
the first —are revived at the first resurrection, intended only for believers, 
are thereby withdrawn from the power of the second death; for them the 
judgment of the world impending at the end of the one thousand years 
(ver. 11 sqq.) brings only the eternally valid confirmation of the priestly 
and kingly glory which, during the former period, had formed for believers 
the beginning of the blessedness to be bestowed upon them eternally. 

Vv. 7-10. After the completion of the one thousand years, Satan is let 
loose; then he leads the heathen nations, Gog and Magog, to an attack upon 
the saints. But fire from heaven consumes those nations, and Satan is cast 
eternally into the lake of fire. —Avojceraz. Here and in ver. 8 (ἐξελεύσεται) 
the statement has the express form of prophecy, which also is repeated in 
ver. 10b (βασανισθήσονται); in ver. 9 and ver. 10a, however, the prophet 
speaks so as to report the revelation imparted to him concerning the events 
impending at the end.1!—7ad ἔθνη. The difficulty that here the heathen 


avis 11. 5 Cf. ii. 8. 6 Cf. ii. 11. 

2 xiii. 7, 10, 15, xvi. 5 8q., xvii. 6, xviii. 24. 7 Cts τὴν 8 Cf. xix. 9, xiv. 13. 
3 Cf., especially, xiii. 15 sqq. 9 Beng., etc. 10 Cf. i. 6, v. 10. 

4 Ewald, De Wette, Ebrard; against Heng- 11 Cf, xix. 9 8q., 17 8q. 


stenb., etc. 


466 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


nations once again enter into conflicts against the saints, after, xix. 21, all 
nations and kings (rendering allegiance to the beast) have been annihilated, 
—to which also the other difficulty is added, that enemies to be found in 
the earthly life contend against believers who are partakers in the first 
resurrection, — is not explained, fully by emphasizing 2 the fact that these 
ἔθνη, Gog and Magog, dwell at the extreme ends of the earth. Vitr., Ewald, 
De Wette, etc., are indeed right when in harmony with the prototype, Ezek. 
xxxviii. 39,3 and the idea of ver. 9 (ἀνέβησαν ἐπὶ τὸ πλάτος τῆς γῆς), they regard 
the farthest ends of the earth as the abode of these nations;* but in the 
entire description of ch. xiii. it was presupposed that all unbelieving inhab- _ 
itants of the earth without exception, all kings and nations, had served 
the beast, and with him had perished. Itis also to be acknowledged that the 
introduction of ἔθνη in this passage is a similar inconsistency as was previ- 
ously shown in that the winds prepared at vii. 1 for destruction do not 
afterwards come into activity; but this inconsistency — which is in general 
a material, and that, too, an inexplicable difficulty, only when the entire 
description, vv. 1-10, is regarded in all its individual parts as a prophecy 
to be thus actually fulfilled, instead of distinguishing the ideal character 
of the Apocalyptic mode of representation, and the actual contents of the 
prophecy to be determined from the analogy of the Holy Scriptures— is 
modified by the fact that the nations here presented, Gog and Magog, stand 
in no relation whatever to the beast, and dwell at such a distance that also, in 
this respect, they may appear with the dwellers on earth formerly found 
in the empire of the beast. For it is also in harmony with this, that these 
heathen nations are led to the conflict against the saints immediately by 
Satan himself.6— τὸν Γὼγ καὶ τὸν Mayoy. Even in Jewish theology these two 
names occur, of which the first in Ezekiel, 1]. c., designates the king of the 
land and people of Magog®as names of nations belonging together.? ΑἹ. 
ready, in Ezek., Magog appears, whose ethnographical determination,® of 
course, nevertheless, lies in the background of the description ® as the repre- 
sentative and leader of the heathen nations in general, who rage against the 


1 See on ver. 10. 2 Vitr. 8 Cf. Joseph., Ant. Jud., 1.6: Maywyns δὲ 


8 Cf. especially xxxviii. 15. am’ ἐσχάτου 
βοῤῥᾶ. 

4 Against Hengstenb.: ““ The corners com- 
prise whatever lies within the corners,’’ so that 
the four corners of the earth designate, in fact, 
the same as τὸ πλάτος τῆς γῆς. 

5 Cf., on the other hand, xvi. 18 sq. 

6 Gen. x.2. Cf. Winer, Rwb., on this word. 

7 « At the end of the extremity of the days 
shall Gog and Magog, and their army, come up 
against Jerusalem; but by the hand of King 
Messiah shall they fall, and seven years of 
days shall the children of Israel kindle their 
fire with their weapons of war” (TJarg. of 
Jerusalem on Num. xi. 27). Avoda Sara I.: 
‘* When Gog and Magog shall see war, the 
Messiah will say to them, Why hast thou come 
hither? They will reply, Against the Lord 
aud his Christ.””’ Cf. Wetst. 


τοὺς am αὐτοῦ Maywyas ὀνομασθέντας ᾧκισε, 
Σκυθας δὲ ὑπ᾽’ αὐτῶν (sc. Ἑλλήνων) προσ- 
αγορευομένους [Magog colonized those named 
from him Μαγώγαι, but called by them (sc. the 
Greeks) Scythians]. M. Uhlemann (Zeitschr. 
Siir Wissenschaftl. Theol. herausg. von Hil- 
genfeld, 1862, p. 265 fl.) has in an exceedingly 
instructive way shown that Magog originally 
meant nothing but ‘‘dwelling-place, the land 
of Gog.”? But the name of the people, Gog, 
means “mountain.” All etymological and 
geographical marks show that we are to recog- 
nize the actual people of Gog in the inhabit- 
ants of the Caucasus, as also the Greek Kav- 
κάσιον ovpos in Herodotus really says nothing 
else than “‘the Asiatic Kauk (Gog), or the 
Asiatic high mountain” (p. 283). 
9 Cf. xxxviii. 15. 


CHAP. XX. 7-10. 467 


people of God ruled by the Messiah, and are then destroyed by God. This 
prediction of Ezekiel was made use of already at xix. 17 sqq.;}-but only in 
this passage is it expressly interwoven in the description of the final catas- 
trophe. Therefore the art. of the τὸν πόλεμον refers to the final attack to be 
made on the part of those heathen nations, as a conflict which is confessedly 
to be expected.?, [See Note LXXXIX., p. 473.] ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸ πλάτος τῆς γῆς. 
From the ends of the earth (ver. 8) those nations come up to the broad plain 
of the earth,’ in order thus to reach the city in which the saints are en- 
camped. The ἀναβαίνειν, which is a common expression for military expe- 
ditions, because the position of the attacked is naturally regarded as one 
that is to be found at an elevation, is here the more appropriate, because 
the going up of the nations is properly regarded against Jerusalem.® — καὶ 
ἐκύκλευσαν τὴν παρεμβολὴν τῶν ἁγίων καὶ THY πόλιν THY ἠγαπημένην. The expression 
first of all distinguishes between the camp of the saints and the beloved city, 
i.e., Jerusalem, of course not in the sense wherein, e.g., Grot. understands 
by the camp, the seven churches, chs. i.-iii., and by the beloved city, Con- 
stantinople; but the saints are to be regarded as gathered in the camp, in 
order to defend the holy city against the attacks of the heathen.?’ The 
camp possibly surrounds the city, so that enemies at the same time enclose 
both. That the beloved city is the earthly Jerusalem, — not the new Jeru- 
salem? coming from heaven only at xxi. 1 sqq., after the judgment of the 
world (ver. 15), — is acknowledged with substantial unanimity; but it is an 
ordinary eluding of the context when Jerusalem is regarded as having the 
force only of a symbolical designation of the Church.!°— καὶ κατέβη πῦρ, x.7.A. 
Already, even in Ezekiel (xxxix. 6), this means of destruction alone is men- 
tioned,!1 because it is represented in the most terrible manner as an immedi- 
ate instrument of the Divine judgment of wrath.12— ὁ πλανῶν αὐτοὺς. Here, 
where, with the final judgment upon the Devil, there is an allusion to his 
peculiar guilt, the pres.18 marks in a general way his seductive influence. — 
βασανισθήσονται, «.7.A. Eternal torture; cf. xiv. 11. 

With respect to what is said vv. 1-10, we must distinguish between the 
unprejudiced establishment of the exegetical results, and the theological 
judgment of what is found based upon the analogy of Scripture; and only 
from the former can we arrive at the latter. The exegetical comprehension 
of vv. 1-10, as a whole and in its details, has its most essential condition 
in the recognition of the fact that what is here described lies immediately 
before the proper judgment of the world (ver. 11 sqq.) and after those 
judicial acts of the entire final catastrophe which are described in xix. 19- 


1 Cf. xvi. 13 sqq. 10 Augustine, Beda, Andr., Vitr., Hengstenb. 
2 Cf. xvi.14: τὸν πολ. τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκέιν, K.T.A. Likewise Klief.: ‘*The essential meaning 18 
3 Cf. Hab. i. 6. ‘‘that finally also the peripheral nations shall 
41 Kings xxii. 4; Judg. i. 1. in a mass arise somewhere against the Lord 
5 Hengstenb. and his people, and that thereby, at some place, 
6 Cf. Luke xviii. 31. 7 De Wette. the Divine judgment of destruction shall occur’? 
8 ἐκυκὰ, Cf. Luke xix. 438. (Ρ. 280). 
9 Cf. Andr., who, indeed, if the text is cor- 11 Cf., on the other hand, xxxviii. 22. 
rect, says expressly τὴν νέαν lepove., but in his 12 Cf. Gen. xix. 24; Lev. x. 2; Num. xvi. 35; 
other remarks presupposes the earthly Jeru- Luke ix. 54. 


salem. 13 Cf. xiv. 18. 


468 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


21; i.e., in other words, every exposition must utterly fail which in vv. 1-10 
maintains a recapitulatio,: which can occur only if the interpretation here 
be also allegorical. This false mode of exposition is expressly applied by 
Augustine,? and that, too, from polemical interests against the Chiliasts.® 
But the exegetical principle determining it is followed also by all those 
who?# have found in vv. 1-10 predictions whose fulfilment could be recog- 
nized in certain historical events and states of the Church or the world, 
i.e., such as still occur within the present development of time. That mode 
of exposition must be comprehended as allegorizing, which necessarily is 
most arbitrary in points of the text that most clearly demand another mode 
of explanation. Augustine, e.g.,in order. to be able to recognize the one 
thousand years reign in the present state of the Church,' must find its begin- 
ning, viz., the binding of Satan, in the earthly life of Christ, and interpret the 
ἔβαλεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν GBvoov: “The innumerable multitude of the godless is sig- 
nified, whose hearts are very deep in malignity towards the Church of God.” 
The resurrection, ver. 5, he interprets in the sense of Col. iii. 1; and on ver. 4 
remarks: “It must not be thought that he speaks concerning the final judg- 
ment, but the thrones of rulers and the rulers themselves, by whom the Church 
is now governed, are to be understood.” He accordingly explains ver. 8 sq., 
since Gog means “ roof,” and Magog “from ἃ roof:” “ They are, therefore, 
nations in which we understand the Devil enclosed, as it were, from above, 
and he himself proceeding in some way from them, as they are the roof and 
he, from the roof.” As to the declaration also: “ They went up on the breadth 
of the earth,” they are indicated not at all as having come, or about to come, 
to one place, as though the camp of the saints and the beloved city were in 
one place, although this is nothing but the Church of Christ spread abroad 
throughout the whole world. Similar misconceptions occur in Victorin.,® 
Beda,’ Luther,’ Hammond, Grot., etc.,9 Wetst.,1° Hengstenb ,!! and others. 


1 Introduction, p. 13 sq. 

2 De Civ. D., XX. c. 9, 2: “ Afterwards by 
recapitulating what the Church is doing in 
those thousand years.” Cf. Beda: ‘* Recapitu- 
lating from the origin, he explains more fully 
as he said above: The beast,’’ ete. Of. xvii. 8. 

3 Id., XX. 6. 7, 1: “ They call them χιλι- 
αστάς from a Greek word, whom we, by a lit- 
eral rendering, may call millenarians. It is 
tedious, however, to give a refutation in de- 
tails, but we ought rather to show how this 
scripture is to be received.” 

4. As especially also Hengstenb. 

δ]. 6., 6. 7, 2: ‘*The thousand years, 
moreover, may be understood in two ways, 
either because in those last years, this is done: 
i.e., in the sixth millennium of years, as on the 
sixth day, whose later spaces are now passing, 
and finally on the sabbath that shall follow, 
which has no evening, viz., during the repose 
of the saints which has no end; or he certainly 
represented the one thousand years as all the 
years of this age.”’ 

6 Who, regarding the number 1000 as com- 


posed of 10 which is to be interpreted as indi- 
cating the Decalogue, and 100 as intended for 
‘*the crown of virginity,” explains: “* He who 
has maintained with integrity his purpose of 
virginity, and has faithfully fulfilled the com- 
mandments of the Decalogue, is a true priest of 
Christ, and, perfecting with integrity the mille- 
narian number, is believed to reign with Christ, 
and for him the Devil is bound aright.” 

7 Who, e.g., refers the first resurrection, to 
baptism. 

8 Who reckons from the time of John to the 
Turks. 

9 Who put the binding of Satan in the time 
of Constantine, and by Gog and Magog under- 
stand, like Luther, the Turks. 

10 Who understands the thousand years as 
‘the times of the Messiah,’’ whose duration 
also is specified as forty years, occurring in the 
forty years from the death of Domitian, and, 
by Gog and Magog, understands Barcocheba. 

11 Who finds the beginning of the thousand 
years’ reign in the coronation of Charlemagne 
in the year 800. 


CHAP. XX. 7-10. 469 


More correct than the interpretations of all these allegorists is that of 
the chiliasts, inasmuch as they do not maintain the recapitulation, so greatly 
cherished by the former, but rather leave the thousand-years’ reign in the 
place in which it occurs in the Apocalyptic description of the entire end. 
Nor have all who upon the basis of the Apoc. seriously believed in the future 
entrance of the thousand-years’ reign,! indulged in such sensuous por- 
trayals of the Apocalyptic picture, as were peculiar to Cerinthus? and 
Papias,® and in general to heretics regarded as chiliasts. In accordance 
with the text, Justin and Irenaeus especially maintain the points, that the 
thousand-years’ reign follows the first resurrection, that of the righteous, 
and that it occurs upon earth, as they properly regard the beloved city 
as Jerusalem. The thousand years, both these Fathers take literally.* 
Their interpretation of the former reference is more correct than that of 
Auberlen, who upon the presumption that “the earth, as yet not glorified, 
could not be the place for the glorified Church,” ὅ infers that believers com- 
ing forth with Christ from the invisibility of heaven shall be invested with 
glorified bodies (ἡ ἀνάστ. 7 xp., ver. 5), and then are to return with Christ to 
heaven, in order thence to rule over the earth *— in connection with which 
the contradictory ver. 9 is not at all taken into consideration. In regard 
to the second, viz., the chronological reference, the ancients have seen more 
correctly than Bengel, who even traced two periods of one thousand years 
each, of which the former was to begin in the year 1856, with the destruc- 
tion of the beast (xix. 20) and the binding of Satan, and the second was to 
begin with the loosing of the Devil, and to cease immediately before the end 
of the world (xx. 11). 

The biblical-theological discussion of Rev. xx. 6, which John Gerhard? 
directs against the chiliasts,8 he opens by recalling the fact that the expres- 
sions of the Apoc. must be explained the more certainly from the analogy 
of Holy Scripture, for the reason that it is a deutero-canonical book. More- 
over, from this analogy it is maintained,? first, that the kingdom of Christ 
on earth never, even not at the end of days, is to be one that is to prevail 
externally ; then that all the dead are to arise on one day; that there will 
be only one general resurrection of the dead at the coming of the Lord; 
therefore —so Gerhard evades by incorrectly interpreting what stands writ- 
ten, vv. 1-10 —the beginning of the thousand-years’ reign is probably to 
be discerned in the time of Constantine, Gog and Magog are to be taken as 
Turks, etc. It is, however, rather to be decided, that neither the distinction 
made by the writer of the Apoc. between a first and a second resurrection, 
nor the insertion of a thousand-years’ reign in the space of time thus ob- 
tained, nor the binding and loosing of Satan, and the attack of the heathen, 


1 Justin, Dialogue with Trypho,c.81. See «ΟἹ Ps. xc. 4; Gen. ii. 17, v. 5. Adam is 
Introduction, p. 74.sq. Cf. Iren., Adv. Haer., regarded as dying “ on the day ”’ of his eating, 
V.c. 36: ** John, therefore, with delight fore- because he was not fully a thousand years old. 
saw the first resurrection of the just, and their 5 p. 381. 6 p. 378 sqq. 
inheritance in the kingdom of the earth.” Cf. 7 Loci Theol., T. XX., p. 124. Ed. Cotta, 
V. c. 34 sq. Tiib., 1781. 

2 Euseb., H. Ε-, III. 28. 8 Cf. also Aug. Conf., Art. XVII. 


3 Tren., V. 33. ᾿ 9 j.’c., p. 121. 


470 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


coincide with the eschatological statements of the Holy Scriptures in such a 
way that this Apocalyptic description could be understood in dogmatical 
seriousness; but the text itself makes us acquainted with an ideal descrip- 
tion, whose particular features appear in harmonious connection only when 
the ideal character of the entire poetical picture is correctly estimated. 
What according to the real doctrinal prophecy of Scripture fall upon one 
day of the coming of the Lord,—viz., the resurrection of all the dead 
(among whom believers have indeed the priority, but in no way in the sense 
as though a special period of time, as the thousand-years’ reign, intervened 
between the resurrection of believers and that of other men) and the judg- 
ment of the world, — appears in the Apocalyptic description distributed into 
a long series of special, but coherent, acts. Upon this depends the vivid 
beauty of the Apocalyptic drama; but this poetical beauty is not only 
destroyed, but also perverted to a chiliastic want of judgment, if the ideal 
representation be taken as a theological statement of doctrine. The ideal 
character of the entire description is unambiguously presented, especially in 
that the risen saints have their camp in the earthly Jerusalem, and are 
attacked by earthly heathen nations; and yet the presence of heathen ene- 
mies, after all the dwellers on earth have been slain (xix. 21), is an inoffen- 
sive inconsistency, only if the treatment be neither in the one case nor the 
other of actual things. Klief. also approximates this view by avoiding 
the extension of time, and finding in the symbolical number only the idea 
indicated that the Lord’s victory is one that is absolute. — A vain attempt 
to put in a favorable light chiliasm, supposed to be based upon the analogy 
of the Holy Scriptures, has recently been made by L. Kraussold.2 He 
denies that in vv. 4 and 5 a resurrection of dead believers is indicated, and 
says:% “The souls of the righteous live before God and with God, — that is 
their first resurrection.” But by thus ascribing to the righteous a twofold 
“resurrection,” he emphatically asserts that the souls of the righteous, after 
the first resurrection, are still without glorified bodies, and at the same time 
understands the thousand-years’ reign — of which these righteous souls are 
participants — as referring to a finally impending, actually historical time 
of the peaceful development of the kingdom of God on earth.* 

At all events, Luthardt is in better agreement with the text, when cor- 
rectly estimating vv. 4, 5, he finds. the hope pledged of the future dominion 
of Christ and his glorified Church, over the rest of mankind, but is content 
with not being able to determine that which lies beyond the present order 
of things. [See Note XC., p. 474.] If the ideal character of the entire 
description be acknowledged, the numerical designation of a thousand years 
can be stated only in a schematical sense,> and can give no occasion, as even 
in Hengstenb., for an Apocalyptic reckoning. For there is no reason for 
ascribing to John the play-work by which the Talmudists and the Church 
Fathers, combining such passages as Isa. lxiii. 4, Zech. xiv. 7, Gen. i., with 


11 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. iv. 16; cf. Intro- 3 p. 72 
duction, p. 85. 4p. 75. 

2 Das Tausend-jdhrige Reich u. die Offend. 5 Ci. 5, 
Joh. Erl., 1863. 


CHAP. XX. 11-15. 471 


Ps. xc. 4, have inferred that the Messianic reign will last a thousand years,! 
or that the world will stand for six millenniums, and in the seventh millen- 
nium the eternal sabbath will follow.2 [See Note XCI., p. 474.] 

Vv. 11-15. The judgment of the world. All the dead appear before the 
enthroned God as Judge. They who are not written in the book of life 
are cast — together with Death and Hades — into the lake of fire. 

Kai εἶδον. Designation of a new vision.’ — θρόνον μέγαν λευκὸν. The great- 
ness, as well as the whiteness, corresponding to the glory and holiness of the 
Judge sitting thereon, distinguishes this throne from that beheld previously 
(ver. 4). — τὸν καθήμενον ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ. The one meant is not the Messiah,‘ but 
God speaking (xxi. 5, 6),5 and designated at iv. 3.6 Ew. ii. understands 
God and Christ.7— ἔφυγεν, cf. xvi. 20. Beng. explains the visible represen- 
tation excellently: “ Not from one place to another, but so that it has no 
longer a place.” Cf. xxi. 1. ἀπῆλθαν, 2 Pet. iii. 10.— A new part of the 
vision proceeding still further (xa? εἶδον, ver. 12), attests the view thereof, 
as all the dead® stand before the throne, and receive their sentence. — The 
ἑστῶτας ἐνώπιον tod θρόνου (ver. 12), in the connection of the whole, has a pre- 
cisely similar relation to the description ver. 13 (k. ἔδωκεν, «.7.2.), a8 in ch. xv. 
ver. 1 has to ver. 6, since it is not reported more definitely (ver. 13) whence 
the dead who stand before the judgment-seat have come.® Bengel im- 
properly regards the νεκρούς (ver. 12) as those who live to see the day of the 
parousia,! by understanding the νεκρούς figuratively, and distinguishing this 
from the resurrection of those actually dead (ver. 13). — καὶ βιβλία ἠνοίχθησαν. 
Cf. Dan. vii. 10. In these books the ἔργα are to be regarded as written, in 
accordance with which men are judged.!2 — καὶ ἄλλο βιβλίον. This book, “ the 
book of life,” is only one; it contains the names of all those who}? will be 
partakers of the eternal blessed life in the new Jerusalem.!4 According to 
the ethical fundamental view, which is supported especially by the promises, 
ch. 11., iii., both kinds of books are to be received in their inner relation to 
one another, that always according to the works which stand indicated 
in the βιβλίοις, the names of men are, or are not, found in the βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς. 
[See Note XCII., p. 474.] As in ver. 12 the entire number of the dead 
was designated by a natural specification referring to their personality, so 
in ver. 13 this idea is presented by a specification of another sort; every 
place where there are any dead, gives them back. The more manifest this 
is as an exhaustive designation of all places of concealment of the dead, the 
more perverted appears the assertion of Hengstenberg and Ebrard,}® that 
the θάλασσα means not the actual sea, but only “ the sea of nations;” 2° but 


1 Cf. De Wette. 

2 Barnab., Zpistl. c. 15. 

8 Vv. 1, 4, xix. 11, xvii. 19. 

4 Matt. xxvi. 31. Beng, Eichh., Ew. i., ete. 

5 Cf. i. 8. 

6 Cf. also Dan. vii. 9. Ziill., De Wette, 
Hengstenb. 

7 “One of two in complete undividedness 
Coys 


8 Concerning the exhaustive specification τ. 


VEKP. TOUS μεγάλους Kal τοὺς μικροὺς, Cf. xi. 18, 
xiii. 16. 

9 Ziill., De Wette. 

10 Cf. also Hengstenb. 

11 Matt. viii. 22. 

12 Ver. 125,18. Cf. ii. 1, 5, 19, iii. 1, 8, 15. 

13 Ver. 15. Cf. iii. 5. 

14 xxi. 1 sqq. 

15 Cf. Augustine, etc. 

16 Hengstenb. 


472 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


from the text (καὶ ὁ θάν. x. ὁ ἅδης, «.74., cf. ver. 14), it does not, therefore, 
follow that John seriously advocated the view according to which those 
contained in the sea had not reached Hades.1 John does not indeed refer 
to a wandering of souls in a watery grave, but simply represents those lying 
dead in the sea as coming forth from the same. Thus, in ver. 13, that is 
described which, according to the analogy of ver. 5, may be termed the 
second resurrection. Since ver. 5 is understood as applying to all believers, | 
this is only the resurrection of those who are to be delivered (ver. 15) 
to the second death, i.e., to eternal torture in the lake of fire. But from 
this it does not follow that ver. 12, in its clearly designated entirety of all 
the (risen, vv. 5 and 18) dead, does not comprise those saints;? but in the 
general judgment of the world, that is expressly affirmed of those saints 
which was already guaranteed to them by the first resurrection and their 
thousand-years’ reign,? because their names were found written in the book 
of life. But that the statement (ver. 15) expressly describes the fate only 
of the unbelieving, is natural for the reason that in this passage the entire 
judgment of condemnation is concluded, in connection with which, then, the 
description of the eternal glory of believers, to which the entire Apocalypse 
is directed,5 may be given the more fully for their consolation and encour- 
agement. — καὶ ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ἄδης ἐβλῆθησαν, x.7.A. Death and Hades, which 
(ver. 13)® are locally represented here,” appear personified as demoniacal 
powers, whose eternal removal 8 is a presupposition to the eternal life of the 
glorified 9 [See Note XCIII., p. 474.] οὗτος ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος ἐστιν. “ This 
death is the second” (death). Thus the correct reading is to be translated.1 
The apposition ἡ λίμνη τοῦ πυρός, construed according to sense, declares that 
the second death—which is followed by no resurrection— consists in the 
βληθῆναι εἰς τ. λίμν. τ. πυρ. (xxi. 8). The first death is easily understood as 
the end of the earthly life. 


ΝΟΤΕΒ BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


LXXXVI. Ver. 2. 6 dtc 6 dpyaioc, K.T.A. 


Luthardt calls attention to the accumulation here of names of Satan as 
being for the purpose of showing how necessary it is that he should be bound, 
the various names expressing different aspects of his character. He interprets 
the one thousand years as ‘‘a long period of the world, a-day of God, with 
whom a thousand years are as one day.’’ The binding is referred to his com- 
plete banishment from earth, so, that, while sin is still to exist in individuals, 
it is no longer to be a power forming a fellowship, and thus making a kingdom 
of sin and Satan. 


1 Cf. Achilles, Tat., V. 318: λέγουσι δὲ τὰς 3 Cf. ver. 6 with ver. 14 sq. 
ἐν ὕδασι ἀνῃρημένας μηδὲ εἰς ἅδον καταβαίνειν 4 Cf. xxi. 21. 
ὅλως, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοῦ περὶ TO Vdwp ἔχειν THY πλάνην 5 xxi. 1 sqq. 6 Cf. i. 18. 
[‘* They say that those swallowed up in the 7-Cf. vi. 8. 
waters do not entirely descend to Hades, but 8 Cf. Isa. xxv. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 26. 
wander there about the water”’]. Wetst., De 9. ΟἹ. 69 AE 
Wette. 10 Cf. the Critical Notes. The δὰ gives: This 


2 Against Hengstenb., etc. is the second death. 


NOTES. 473 


LXXXVII. Ver. 4. κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς. 


Gebhardt suggests, that, by αὐτοῖς, either no definite persons are intended, 
so that it was simply intended to express the idea, ‘‘ there was a judgment;” 
or, as he thinks more probable, believers alive at the coming of Christ. 


LXXXVIII. Ver. 4. τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν πεπελισμένων, k,T.A. 


Gebhardt: ‘‘The seer had, in his eye, two classes of the dead: first, those 
who have, for the gospel, surrendered their lives, —the witnesses of Jesus in a 
special sense (xvii. 6); not only those whose souls (vi. 9) are under the altar, 
but those also who come after (vi. 11; cf. xiii. 7, x. 15, xvi. 5, 6, xvii. 6, viii. — 
24); the full number of those who, according to the will of God, should die; 
until the completion of which, those already killed must rest in heaven (vi. 
9-11); then, all other believers who, notwithstanding affliction and threatened 
death, remain faithful, and have died in the Lord (xiv. 19, xiii. 15, 16); in a 
word, all real Christians who have died either a violent or a natural death.’ 
The second resurrection he regards as including not only the condemned, but 
also the godly of the. Ὁ. T. The emphasis here is sometimes thrown on Ψυχὰς, 
as though this were sufficient to prove that the first resurrection of this chapter 
is spiritual. But, in this sense, had the souls of the martyrs ever died? 
How could they be said to live again, for that is the clear implication of ver. 5, 
if nothing more than a continuance of their spiritual life were indicated ? 
Alford: ‘‘ If in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain 
ψυχαὶ ἔζησαν at the first, and the rest of the νεκροὶ ἔζησαν only at the end of a 
specified period after that first, —if, in such a passage, the first resurrection 
may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means 
literal rising from the grave, then there is an end of all significance in language, 
and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to any thing. If the first 
resurrection is spiritual, then so is the second, which, I suppose, none will be 
hardy enough to maintain; but, if the second is literal, so is the first.’’ On the 
other hand, the difficulty must not be ignored, which is stated by Carpenter: 
‘*There will be faithless people during the millennium,—the nations to be 
deceived (ver. 8). Are we then to picture saints with glorified bodies living on 
the earth, which, at the same time, is tenanted by men and women still in the 
natural body ?”’ 


LXXXIX. Ver. 8. τὸν Toy καὶ Mayoy, 


Gebhardt: ‘‘ Christianity has a period before it, and, indeed, a long one, of 
unimpeded, powerful, and blissful extension and authority in this present 
world; but this period must one day come to an end; the earth, in its present 
sin-ruined form, or rather state, cannot become the eternal or absolute state 
or manifestation of the Christian ideal world. Evil, though so long and so 
extensively kept in abeyance, will once more arouse itself for the struggle with 
the kingdom of God. After the course of a thousand years, the personal 
principle of all ungodliness will be loosed from his prison, and, according to the 
purpose of God, will again become active on earth; the Devil has still a footing 
there; evil yet exists, and must show its activity in opposition to God and his 
kingdom. Christianity has spread and triumphed even to the end of the earth; 
but there are yet heathens who are not subject to it, but who, enslaved and led 
by the Devil, seek to destroy it.’’ 


474. THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


XC. Vv. 1-10. 


Luthardt’s very words, in the passage here alluded to by Diisterdieck, are 
important: ‘‘ Not a carnal dominion (cf. Augsburg Conf., xvii.), but a spiritual 
heavenly dominion of peace, and state of blessedness on earth, whereof, since it 
does not belong to the present order of things, we neither have nor can frame 
any idea, but should be content in that we shall always be with Christ, and this 
his Church shall be glorified before the world.”’ 


XCI. Vv. 1-10. 


A condensed summary of the modern historical relations of this doctrine is 
found in Cremer and Zéckler’s Dogmatik (in Zockler’s Handbuch, vol. ii. p. 762 
sq.): ‘‘ Neither Roman nor Greek Catholicism acknowledges a thousand-years’ 
reign as still impending. In the grosser Judaizing sense in which the Anabap- 
tists (Denk, Hetzer, Miinzer, etc., recurring to the sensuous, voluptuous ideas 
of a Cerinthus, etc.) comprehended the chiliastic idea, it is rejected by the 
fundamental confession of the Reformation (see Augsburg Confession, art. xvii. ; 
also the Helvetic Confession, ii. 11). The orthodoxy of the seventeenth century, 
as well as, in modern times, Hengstenberg (who makes the spiritually inter- 
preted millennium coincide with the period 800-1806), Althaus, H. O. Kohler, 
Thomasius, Diedrich, Philippi, Kahnis, the ‘‘ Missourians,”’ consider each and 
every form of chiliasm incompatible with Scripture and Church doctrine. To 
them, all such doctrines are to be condemned: the chiliasmus crassus of the 
Anabaptists, as well as the moderate and refined types of doctrine of the two 
last centuries, viz., the chiliasmus subtilissimus of a Spener (‘‘the hope of 
better times’’), Vitringa, A. Hahn, Rothe, Léhe, Vilmar, v. Hofmann, Florcke, 
Schoeberlein, Volek, Auberlen, Beck, Franck, Dorner, etc. [post-millennarians]; 
and the chiliasmus subtilior of a Petersen, Bengel, Crusius, Oetinger [pre-mil- 
lennarians].”’ 


XCII. Ver. 12. βιβλία ---- ἄλλο βιβλίον. 


As Hengstenberg notes, there is a contrast. No name can be both in 
the βιβλία and the ἄλλο ϑιβλίον. When erased from the one, by the blood of the 
Lamb (1 John i. 9; Rev. xiii. 8), it is inserted in the other. Luthardt: ‘‘ He 
whom God finds standing in life enters into eternal life.’’ Thus the idea of 
the ζωῆς is not restricted to future life, but comprehends that also which then is 
both present and past. 


XCIIL. Ver. 14. καὶ ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ἅδῃς, k.7.A. 


Luthardt: ‘‘ Death and the state of death that have hitherto prevailed have 
now an end, — not judged, but annihilated (1 Cor. xv. 26), — first for the Church, 
then for humanity; but for unbelieving humanity, to give place to eternal fire.”’ 
Gebhardt: ‘‘Death is not simply destroyed; but as a diabolical power, the 
auxiliary or instrument of the evil one (cf. Heb. ii. 14, 15), it is abolished 
forever, made innocuous, condemned, and annihilated (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 26).” 


CHAP. XXI. 475 


CHAPTER XXI. 


Ver. 1. Instead of παρῆλθε (Elz.), read ἀπῆλθαν (A, B, δὲ, Lach., Tisch. [W. 
and H.]).— Ver. 2. The addition ἐγὼ ᾿Ιωάννης to καὶ εἶδον (Elz.) is here incorrect. 
— Ver. 3. The sing. λαὸς (Beng., Tisch.) is sufficiently supported by B, 2, 4, 7, 
al., Verss. The plur. λαοὶ (A, 8, Elz., Lach., Tisch. 1X. [W. and H.]), which 
does not belong in the O. T. tone of description, may, indeed, have been occa- 
sioned by the preceding αὐτοὶ, -- Ver. 6. Téyovav. So A, Iren., Lach., Tisch. [W. 
and H.]. To this also leads the erroneous text-recension γέγονα ἐγὼ τὸ A καὶ τ, 2 
in B, &,; while the γέγονε ἐγώ εἰμι, x.7.A, (Rec.), originate in xvi. 17. — Ver. 9. 
Read, with A, &, Verss., Beng., Lach., Tisch., τὴν νύμφην, τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ apviov, 
The various transpositions (Rec.: 7. νύμφ, t. ἀρν. τ, yuv.) depend upon the pur- 
pose of combining the τ. νύμφ. with τ, apv.; cf. xix. 7.— Ver. 16. Undoubtedly 
false is the effort at interpretation, τοσοῦτόν ἐστιν before ὅσον (Elz., rejected already 
by Beng.). — Ver. 23. The ἐν before αὐτῇ (Rec.) is, according to A, B, &), al., to 
be deleted (Beng., ἃ. N.). — Ver. 24. The Ree. καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τῶν σωζομένων ἐν TO φωτὶ 
αὐτῆς περιπατήσουσι is an interpretation. Beng. already has the correct text. — 
Ver. 27. Instead of κοινοῦν (Elz.), read κοινὸν (A, B, &, al., Beng., Griesb., 
Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). The neuter ποιοῦν (B, Elz.) has been written 
because of the immediately preceding πᾶν xo. Before the correct ποιῶν (A, 
δὲ.» Beng., Lach., Tisch.), however, the article (7, 8, 18, al., Tisch.) is probably 
not justified (A, δὲ), Beng., Lach.). 


Now, finally, after all the enemies of the Lamb, and his believers, have 
been eternally removed, there appears (xxi. 1-xxii. 5) the final and supreme 
goal of all Apocalyptic prophecy, the eternal completion of the promised 
mystery of God,! that wherein all the promises which the Lord had caused 
to be declared to his Church are fulfilled, and to which he had directed all 
the hopes of his people in the midst of the afflictions of the world, and 
towards which, accordingly,*also the deepest longing of believers extends.? 
Augustine already ὃ remarks correctly: “ When the judgment is finished, 
whereby he announced beforehand that the wicked are to be judged, i 
remains for him to speak also concerning the good.” The result of ver: 4, with 
complete clearness to him, is that the subject of treatment here is the 
eternal ble-sedness of the godly.4— Nevertheless, individual expositors have 
ruined also the description of ch. xxi. by allegorizing.® 


el 

2 Cf. xxii. 17, 20. 

a ere v is 

41. 6., 6. 14: * Things are said with such 
clearness concerning the future world and 
immortality, and the eternity of the saints, that 
we ought to seek for nothing manifest in the 


Holy Scriptures, if we suppose these to be 
obscure.” 

5 Cf., e.g., Grot., who again stops with the 
times after Constantine, when the first earth 
no longer existed, because the earth no longer 
drank the blood of the martyrs, etc. Even 
Vitr. understands “‘ a state of the Church to be 


476 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


Vv. 1-8. John beholds a new heaven and a new earth, and the new 
Jerusalem when it descends from heaven. At this a mighty voice from 
heaven proclaims that this is the place where God will dwell with glorified 
men (vy. 1-4). The enthroned God himself testifies to this, by declaring 
at the same time the eternal ruin awarded to the godless; and, meanwhile, 
an angel commissions John to write down the present words of Divine 
revelation (vv. 5-8). 

Οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινὴν, x.t.A. Cf. Isa. xv. 17, Ixvi. 22. The theo- 
logical question as to whether the old world will pass away in such a man- 
ner, that from it, as a seed, the new will arise, or whether an absolutely new 
creation, after the entire annihilation of the old world, be referred to, is 
indeed to be decided least of all from’ the Apocalyptic description ; yet 
this description! is not opposed to the former view, which, according to 
Scripture,? is more probable than the latter. — καὶ ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι. Τῇ 
the question be raised, why in the new world there will be no sea, such 
answers result —even though no allusion to the sea of nations be made 
here *— as that. by Andreas, that the cessation of earthly separations ren- 
ders also navigation, together with the sea, unnecessary; by Beda, that by 
the conflagration of the world the sea may be dried up; by De Wette and 
Luthardt, that the new world will be formed by fire, as the old world issued 
from the water; by Ewald: “This opinion seems to have been derived 
peculiarly from the horror of the deep sea which the Israelites, Egyptians, 
and ancient Indians had derived from love of the land, confined within 
which they lived;” by Zull., that also in paradise there would be no sea, in 
connection with which Ew. ii. and Volkm. besides remark that the sea and 
the abyss of hell belong together, and that, therefore, in the new world, the 
one can no more have a place than the other. But every combination of sea 
and hell is incorrect,® and according to xx. 10, 15, the writer of the Apoca- 
-lypse actually refers to an abyss of hell eternally existing with the new 
heaven and the new earth. — The form of these answers of itself shows 
that the question is only put improperly. The text has the words referring 
to the sea in the place where the passing away of the entire old world is 
recalled; here that is expressly said which, xx. 11, was not expressly ren- 
dered prominent, that the sea also is no more, just as also the old earth and 
the old heaven. The tenor of the text, accordingly, does not forbid. us 
thinking also of a new sea with the new earth. [See Note XCIV., p. 485.] 
Ἱερουσαλὴμ καινὴν. Also in Gal. iv. 26, there is a statement concerning the 
ἄνω Ἵερουσ., but so that this idea, proceeding from the contrast to the viv 
Ἵερουσ., only gives concretely the ideal view of the heavenly, spiritual, and 
free character of the Church of believers. But in John the matter is different 
in a twofold respect ; since, in the first place, he regards the new Jerusalem 


presented on earth at the last times,” which τῆς κτίσεως, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνακαινισμόν ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον 
he expects even before the judgment of the [** And here he does not reveal a non-existence 


world. of the creation, but a renewal to what is bet- 
1 Cf. also 2 Pet. iii. 10 sqq. ter’’]. 
21 Cor. xv. 42 sqq.; Rom. viii. 21; Matt. 4 Augustine, Hengstenb. 

xix. 28. 5 Cf. xiii. 1 with xiii. 11, xi. 7 with ix. 2. 


3 Cf. Andr.: κἀνταῦθα οὐκ ἀννπαρξιαν δηλοῖ 6 Cf. also Beda. 


CHAP. XXI. 1-8. ὦ 477 


only after the history of the world, when the heaven and earth also are made 
new, and then regards the new Jerusalem as descending from heaven to 
earth. — καταβ. ἐκ τ. οὐρ. ἀπὸ τ. 6. The several prepositions, as 111. 12, mark, 
first of all, what is purely local, then (ἀπὸ) the idea resulting to the personal 
τ. θ.. that the holy city descends “from God,” as God has prepared it and 
sent it down. The variation is different, e. g.,in John xi. 1. In the expres- 
sion xxi. 10, the local idea appears to prevail even in the ἐκ τ. θ. --- ἡτοιμασμέν nv. 
“ Prepared 3 as a bride adorned for her husband.” Here already (cf. ver. 9) 
the idea, according to which the new Jerusalem is regarded as the dwelling- 
place (cf. ver. 3) of the Lamb’s bride, i.e., of the Church of glorified 
believers,? passes over to that according to which the new Jerusalem itself 
— together with those dwelling therein —is regarded as the bride. While 
John sees the new Jerusalem descending from heaven, he hears a strong 
voice from heaven,! which immediately interprets this introductory vision 
(cf. ver. 9 sqq.) to the effect that this city descending from heaven is “the 
tabernacle of God with men,” in which God himself shall dwell with men, 
and refresh them after all the sorrow they have experienced on earth, as this 
is henceforth no longer possible.6 From the very beginning, therefore, the 
blessed mystery of the new Jerusalem is so interpreted that here the fulfil- 
ment is manifest (x. 7) of all that God had previously promised to his 
people through the prophets,‘ as it is, in truth, the complete realization of 
the communion between God and his people existing already in time (cf. 
ver. 7). — ὁ θάνατος, κιτιΔ. Cf. xx. 14. --- πένθος. As in xviii. 8, the special 
particular of lamentation for the dead is here presented, in connection with 
ὁ θάνατος. --- κραυγὴ The vehement cry, possibly, at the experience of such 
acts of violence as are indicated at xiii. 10, 17, ii. 10.7— πόνος. As in the 
earthly life was endured with every form of 6Anpuc. —6rt πρῶτα ἀπῆλθαν. The 
reason conditioning all (cf. vv. 1, 5). — What the heavenly voice interpret- 
ing the vision of John has announced, is now confirmed by the One himself 
who sits upon the throne,’ and that, too, in a double declaration (x. εἶπεν, 
vv. 5, 6), since he proclaims as his work (Ἰδού, καινὰ ποιῶ πάντα, ver. 5), what 
John beheld in ver. 1,9 and had understood in ver. 4 (ὅτι τ. πρῶτα ἀπῆλθαν) 
from the heavenly voice to be the presupposition of the blessedness of 
believers indicated in vv. 3, 4, but then —after the angel, meanwhile,}° had 
expressly commanded John (x. λέγει, ver. 5b) to write down these trustworthy 
words of God himself, which contain the highest pledge of the future hope 11 
—the promise mentioned already in ver. 3 sq. is expressed in the most 
definite manner (Ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι, «.7.A., ver. 6 sqq.) The latter, however, 
occurs in such a way that, in this declaration of God himself, there is found, 


1 Cf. iii, 12. Cf. Sohar, Gen., p. 69: ‘God 4 Of. xiv. 13. 
will renew his world, and build up Jerusalem, 5 Cf. vii. 14-17. 
ΒΟ as to make it descend into his midst, that it 6 Cf. Ezek. xxxvii. 27; Isa. xxv. 8, Ixv. 19. 
may never be destroyed.”’ See Wetst. on Gal., 7 Bleek, Ew. Cf. Exod. iii.7,9; Esth. iv. 2. 
l.c.; Schéttgen, Diss. de Hieros. coelest.; Hor. 8 Cf. xx. 11. 
Hebr., I. 1205 sqq. © Cf. xx. 11. 

2 C1 X1xe Ts 10 xix. 9, xxii. 6. Beng., Ziill., Hengstenb. 


ὃ xix. 7 sq. 11 Cf. also xiv. 13. 


478 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


besides the promise to the victor,! also the corresponding threatening of the 
unbelieving (ver. 8); and that this announcement, looking towards both 
sides, is introduced with an allusion to the majesty of the eternal God, 
because just upon this does the eternal end of all temporal development 
depend.? The yéyovav, however,? which opens this entire declaration, puts 
it in immediate connection with the vision; for that which John had beheld, 
viz., the perishing of the old and the existence of the new world, is here 
proclaimed as having happened. — δειλοῖς. By this such Christians are meant 
as, in contrast with ὁ νικῶν, shun the sorrowful struggle with the world by 
denying the truth of the faith.*— ἀπίστοις, «.7.4. The unbelieving are not 
Christians who have fallen from faith, but the dwellers on earth hostilely 
disposed to the Christian faith,® to whom also’ all the succeeding designa- 
tions pertain. — ἐβδελυγμένοις, Who have in themselves the βδελύγματα, xvii. 
4 sq.—r. ψευδέσι. Cf. ver. 27, xxil. 15. — τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν, x.7.A. With the dat., 
possibly ἡ λίμνη, κ.τ.}., is to be expected; from this construction, however, 
there is a departure by the interposition 8 of the formula τὸ μέρος (se. ἔσται), 
which then brings with it the genitive αὐτῶν.9ϑ 

Ver. 9-xxli. 5. One of the seven vial-angels, another of whom had 
shown John the judgment of the great harlot,!° now carries the seer to a high 
mountain, in order to afford hia a close view of the new Jerusalem. Then 
there follows the special description which portrays in brightest colors the 
final goal of Christian hope, and thus puts the glorious end of what is to 
happen at the close of the peculiarly revealed visions. 

Vv. 9,10. Δεῦρο, «7.4. The uniformity of the description makes promi- 
nent the contrast with the judgment presented to view (xvi. 1).1?— τὴν 
νύμφην, τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ dpviov. It belongs to the contrast with the woman 
representing the worldly city, that here the holy city, wherein the holy 
Church of God dwells, appears as the bride, the wife belonging to the 
Lamb.1!8 — ἀπήνεγκέν we. Cf. xvii. 8; Ezek. Χ]. 2. ---- μέγα καὶ ὑψηλὸν. “ Great” 
in circumference must the mountain be in proportion to its height; but the 
height assures the seer of the complete view of the city spread out before 
him, which at all events does not lie upon the mountain.14— καταβαίνουσαν, 
κιτλ. Hengstenb.® finds that described here for the first time in proper 
terms which previously designated, by way of introduction, ver. 2; but 
ver. 10 cannot have the same relation to ver. 2 as, e.g., ch. xv. ver. 5 has 
to ver. 1, for, in this connection, already at ver. 2 reference was made to 
the descending Jerusalem. The scene is thus to be regarded in the way 
that the descending of the city (ver. 2), which gives occasion for the 
speeches of vv. 3-8, has already begun, but ver. 10 proceeds further, so that, 
while the city is sinking down from heaven to earth, and here finds its place, 


1 The expression in itself marks already the 8 Cf. xx. 6. 
parenetic intention. 9 Matt. xxiv. 51. De Wette. 
2 Cf. i. 8. 10 xvii. 1. 
3 Cf. xvi. 17. it Cf. iv. 1. 
4 Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb. 12 Cf. Ewald. 
5 Ewald; cf. also Beng. 13 Cf. ver. 2 and xix. {. 
6 Cf. xiii. 8, xvi. 2, 21. 14 Against Hengstenb. and Luthardt. 


7 Cf. ix. ΟἿ 15 On ver. 1. 


CHAP. XXI. 12-21. 479 


John is carried by the angel to the mountain, and thence gazes upon the 
city now found upon earth. 

Ver. 11 begins the description itself? which first of all states its gleam- 
ing appearance. — ἔχουσαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ. What is most important, most 
peculiar, and what at the same time captivates the eye of the seer above all 
things, is the brilliancy which irradiates the whole city: “it has” in itself, 
it comprehends as dwelling and abiding within it,? the present glory of God 
himself.8 The concrete character of this presentation is effaced by the read- 
ing of the 8: ἀπὸ τ. θ. ---- τ. φωστὴρ, «.7.A, The description now proceeds further 
independently of the ἔδειξεν ; only the first item of the description (ἔχουσαν τ. 
δόξ, τ. @.) had been given in the formal connection of the original construc- 
tion.4 From ver. 23,5 it follows, that ὁ φωστὴρ αὐτῆς ® is not distinct from the 
δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ 1 the source of light for the city is the δόξα οἵ God himself 
present therein.® — ὅμοιος λίθῳ, «.7.2. The appearance of God was illustrated 
similarly. — κρυσταλλίξοντι. Cf. Psellus in Wetst.: ἡ ἰάσπις φύσει κρυσταλλοειδῆς.3 

Vv. 12-21. The wall and the gates of the city. The harmonious pro- 
portions are given,! according to the holy number twelve of the O. T. people 
of God. — ἀγγέλους δώδεκα. Correctly, Bengel: “They keep watch, and serve 
as an ornament. More definite references dare not be sought; as soon as 
we reflect that the new Jerusalem is no longer threatened by enemies, and 
therefore needs no watchmen of its gates, explanations result like that of 
Hengstenb., viz., that these angels symbolize the Divine protection against 
enemies “which could be conceived of only by an imagination filled with 
terrors, proceeding from the Church militant.” — ὀνόματα ἐπιγεγραμμένα, k.7.A, 
It does not follow that* John wanted this idea, based upon Ezek. xlviii. 31 
sqq-, to be understood as it occurs-in Jewish theology, viz., that members of 
one tribe could make use of only one door. — As the walls on all four sides 
have each three gates (ver. 13), it follows (ver. 14) that there are twelve 
sections of the wall, each of which is supported by a θεμέλιος; four of these 
are to be regarded as massive corner-stones, since these support the corner- 
pieces which extend from the third gate of the one side to the first gate of 
the following side. The twelve corner-stones lie open to view, at least so 
far that their splendor can be perceived,!? and the inscriptions found thereon, 
viz., the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, can be read. In explana- 
tion of the latter idea, Calov., etc., have properly appealed to Eph. ii. 20. 
[See Note XCV., p. 485.] 

Vy. 15-17. The angel who shows John the city 18 gives him a clear view 
of its dimensions by 15 actually measuring them before the eyes of the seer.® 
— μέτρον κάλαμον χρυσοῦν. Cf. xi. 1, where, however, the κάλαμος is not expressly 
designated as μέτρον. The measuring-reed is “golden” because of the 


1 Cf. Ezek. xl. sqq. 2 Cf. ver. 3. 9 [‘* The jasper, in nature crystalline.’’] 
δ᾽ Ver. 23, xv. 8. 10 Cf. Ezek. xlviii. 30 sqq. 
4 Cf. Winer, p. 499. 11 Cf. De Wette. 
5 Cf. also Ezek. xiliii. 2. 12 Cf. ver. 19 aq. 
6 Cf. Gen. i. 14. 13 Cf. ver. 9. 
7 Against Ziill., according to whom the 14 Cf. Ezek. xl. 5 sqq. 
Messiah is irradiated in the φωστὴρ. 15 Bengel, Ewald, De Wette. 


8 De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 16 Ezek. xlii. 16 sqq. 


480 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 
glory, not indeed of the measuring angel, but of the objects to be measured 
(ver. 18). These are presented in the series designated in ver. 15; viz., the 
city (ver. 16), the walls (vv. 17-20), the gates (ver. 21). That the city lies 
(κεῖται, cf. iv. 2) four-cornered, and, indeed, with right angles and equal 
length and breadth, and, therefore, that its outline forms a perfect square,? 
John recognizes already (ver. 16a) even before the angel begins to measure. 
But the angel also establishes the length of the particular sides: καὶ ἐμέτρησεν 
τὴν πόλιν, x.7.4. (ver. 16h). The words by themselves might signify that the 
entire circuit of the city? amounted to twelve thousand stadia (ἐπὲ oradiouc),* 
so that each of the four equal sides would measure three thousand stadia; 
but as the equality of the length and the breadth has been designated from 
the very beginning, it is more probable that the twelve thousand stadia 
which were actually measured are meant as the mass lying at the founda- 
tion of the entire building, which, according to ver. 16c, applies also to the 
height of the city; for that by the closing words (καὶ τὸ pijxoc—ica ἐστίν), 
dimensions actually identical are given for the length, breadth, and height 
of the city, is to be denied neither on account of ver. 17, nor on account of 
xxii. 2,5 for the reason that the idea of the city thus resulting is a mon- 
strosity.© The city appears, therefore, as an enormous cube, which measures 
in length, breadth, and height, each, twelve thousand stadia.7_ [See Note 
XCVI., p. 000.] The height “of the city” (ver. 16c) is not the height of 
the walls (ver. 17), as Bengel also admits, who affirms, on this account, that 
the one hundred and forty-four cubits (ver. 17) are equal to the twelve hun- 
dred stadia (ver. 16); but the idea of the height of the city as a whole, i.e., 
of the mass of houses contained in it, is given, ver. 16c.8— In ver. 17 there 
follows the measuring of the walls, viz., of their height, since the length of 
the walls is identical with the length and breadth of the city 9 (ver. 16). The 
specification of one hundred and forty-four cubits 19 is to be understood ac- 
cording to the common “measure of a man” (μέτρον ἀνθρώπου),1} “ which is 
the measure of the angel.” The words 6 ἔστιν ἀγγέλου cannot say that, in the 
present case, the angel has made use of the ordinary human measure,!” but 
the measurements of the angel and of man are made equal,}% without ven- 
turing, against the expression μέτρον ἀνθρώπου, to declare 15 that the measure 
of glorified men is here regarded.45—In comparison with the height of the 
city (ver. 16), the wall appears very low, even though this is extraordinarily 


1 Hengstenb. 

2 Cf. Ezek. xviii. 16. 

3 Vitr., Eichh., Ew. i., Volkm. 

4 Cf. Winer, p. 381. 

5 Where the streets are spoken of. 

6 Against De Wette, who explains the ica 
in reference to the height, viz., of the walls, 
according to his misconception of ver. 16c, as 
‘‘uniform,”’’ because the walls are everywhere 
144, i.e., 12 X 12 cubits high. 

7 j.e., 300 German miles [a German mile 
being equal to 4.611 English and American stat- 
ute miles, the measure would be, according to 
our computation, nearly 1,400 miles]. Andr., 


Beng., Ziill., Hengstenb., Rinck; also Ew. ii., 
who at the same time alludes to the fact that 
this uniformity was found in the ancient Mo- 
saic sanctuary only in the holy of holies. Cf. 
also Luthardt. 

8 Hengstenb. 

9 If the thickness of the walls were meant 
(Luther, gloss), it would necessarily be ex- 
pressed. 

10 Not 144,000, Ew. ii., p. 349. 

11 Cf. xiii. 18. 

12 De Wette. 

13 Hengstenb. 

15 Matt. xxii. 30. 


14 Ebrard. 


CHAP. XXI. 15-17. 481 


high when compared with earthly relations... The reason is not that the 
walls are to form only a bulwark put about the city like a temple,? and, 
besides, that the light proceeding from the city is not to be obstructed by a 
high wall;* but it may be indicated that for keeping off every thing rela- 
tively unclean (cf. ver. 27) the relatively low walls are sufficient, because, 
indeed, a violent attack is perfectly inconceivable. 

The splendor of the wall of the city itself (ver. 18), of the twelve foun- 
dation stones (ver. 19), and of the twelve gates (ver. 21), is described with 
the greatest glory whereof human fantasy is capable. — 7 ἐνδόμησις τ. recy. abr. 
In Josephus,‘ a stone mole built in the sea, which is intended to break the 
force of the waves, is thus named.5 Here the proper wall is designated, so 
far as it stands upon the foundation stones;* but the technical expression 
compounded with ἐν Τ᾿ has its justification here, because the higher masonry 
is rooted, as it were, in the ground. — Beside the wall, in ver. 184, the city 
as a whole, i.e., the mass of houses,’ whose height was given, ver. 16¢, is 
mentioned, because this enormous mass, projecting above the walls, must 
now first be described before the individual parts (vv. 19-21) can come 
more accurately into consideration. The city consists of “pure gold, like 
unto clear glass.” Already Andreas has correctly remarked that the addi- 
tion, ὅμοιον ὑάλῳ καθαρῷ..39 represents the gold as “transparent,” which had 
been already sufficiently designated by καθαρόν as free from every mixture, 
so that in this respect it did not require any special comparison with the 
purity of glass,!° although Andreas makes a mistake in referring this to 
the διαυγὲς καὶ λαμπρὸν of the inhabitants of the city.1! But it is incon- 
ceivable that John, in order to illustrate the inexpressible glory of the city 
descending from heaven, transgresses the natural limits of the earthly, and 
therefore here, e.g., represents a transparent gold as the material whereof 
the houses of the new Jerusalem consist, as it is unjustifiable to pervert 
the beautiful pictures which spring from the sanctified fantasy of the 
seer into theological propositions, and, accordingly, to expect that gold 
now opaque shall actually, in the world to come, receive “the nature of a 
precious stone, transparency.’ 12— The description, ver. 19, turns to par- 
ticular details, and that, too, to the foundations oi the walls. With all 
precious stones are they “adorned,” 18 but not in such a way as possibly only 
to be set with precious stones, but !4 every individual θεμέλιος consists of an 
enormous precious stone.15—As the twelve θεμέλιοι have nothing to do with 
the number of the Israelitish tribes,!® so that artificial expedient whereby 
the stones mentioned in ver. 19 sq. are brought into an assumed relation 1 


1 Cf. ver. 12. 9 Cf. also ver. 21. 
2 Cf. Ezek. xl. 5. 10 Against Beng., Hengstenb. 
8. Ziill. 11 Cf. also Vitr., etc. 
4 Ant., xv. 9. 12 Ebrard. 
5 ἡ δὲ ἐνδόμησις, ὅσην ἐνεβάλετο κατὰ τῆς 18 παντὶ. Cf. xviii. 12. 
θαλάσσης, x.7.A. [The building, as much as 14 Cf. Isa. liv. 11 sq. 
he cast into the sea’’]. 15 Andr., Beng., De Wette, Hengstenb., 
6 Wetst., De Wette, Hengstenb., Bleek. Ebrard. 
7 Instead of this, another, possibly ἐπιδό- 16 Cf. ver. 14. 
μησις, is not afforded. 17 Cf. especially Ziill., Hacurs. Τ|., p. 456 


8 Hengstenb., Ebrard, Ew. ii. sqq.; also Ew. ii., Luthardt, Volkm. 


482 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


to those which the high priest wore in his breastplate, is to be discarded as 
decidedly as the vain attempt to assign individual jewels to the individual 
apostles. De Wette and Hengstenb. also, with propriety, deny that an 
intentional order is to be sought in the precious stones here mentioned, 
which, according to Ebrard, will not become clear until in eternity. — 
laome. Like the entire ἐνδόμησις of the walls. Cf. iv. 9. -- σάπφειρος, 30, 
Exod. xxiv. 10, xxviii. 18. The descriptions of the ancients,? especially 
of Pliny,? apply not so much to our azure, transparent sapphire, as rather 
to our dark-blue opaque lazuli, lapis lazuli.—yadxydév. Possibly corre- 
sponding to the 13¥, Exod. xxviii. 19, where, however, the LX X., with whom 
the name χαλκηδών does not occur, have ἀχάτης. Even Pliny is not acquainted 
with the name chalcedony. On the agate occurring in various forms and 
compositions, cf. Pliny, H. N., xxxvii. 54. — σμάραγδος. Cf. iv. 3. In the 
LXX.,° σμάρ. stands for the Hebr. N13. Cf. Plin., 1. 6.) 6. xvi.: “ The third 
rank is ascribed to emeralds for reason. The appearance of no color 
is more pleasing, since there is nothing whatever greener than they.” &— 
σαρδόνυξ. DIM, Exod. xxxix. 11; Ezek. xxviii. 18. Plin., 1. 6., 6. 23: 
“Formerly by sardonyx, as appears from the name, was understood the 
brilliancy in the sard, i.e , that in the flesh beneath man’s finger-nail, and 
translucent on both sides.” --- σάρδιον. Cf. iv. 8. -- χρυσόλιθος. Exod. xxviii. 
20, LXX., for WWI. The chrys. of the ancients, which Plin., 1. 6.5) 6. 42, 
describes as golden-yellow,’ is probably identical with our topaz. — βήρυλλος. 
LXX., Exod. xxviii. 20; Ezek. xxviii. 13 (βηρύλλιον) for DIY, which Gen. 
11. 12 renders by ὁ λίθος ὁ mpdowoc. The stone is in color γλαυκίζων, or, as 
Pliny, 1. ¢., 6. 20, says, most appropriately: “They imitate the greenness of 
the pure sea.” --- τοπάζιον. Exod. xxviii. 17; Ezek. xxviii. 13; Job xxviii. 
19, LXX., for 7103. Our topaz is yellow and transparent, so as to corre- 
spond with the description of Strabo ; 9 while the declarations of Pliny, 1. c., 
c. 32, refer to our chrysolite. — χρυσόπρασος. ‘This does not occur in the 
LXX. Pliny, 1]. ¢., 6. 20, presents the chrysoprasus with the chrysoberyl, 
but ascribes to it a paler golden color than to the latter. — ὑάκινθος. In the 
LXX. the Cod. Alex. has this name, where Cod. Vat. gives λιγύριον 19 for ow). 
Pliny, 1. c., c. 41, compares it with the amethyst, and remarks: “ This is 
the difference, viz., that the violet shining in the amethyst is diluted in the 
jacinth.” — ἀμέθυστος. Exod. xxviii. 19, LXX., for ΠΡ ΤΙΝ, Pliny, 1. 6.» 
c. 40, reckons the amethyst as a purple gem; he says especially of the Indian 
amethysts, the most distinguished: “They have the absolute color purpurae 
felicis ;” but, even to the inferior kinds, he ascribes a similar color and 
transparency.11— The twelve gates consist each (ἀνὰ εἰς ἕκαστος) 12 of one 


1 Andr., Beng., etc. 6 See also Wetst. 

2 Cf. Wetat. 7 “Shining with golden brilliancy.” 

3 H. N., xxxvii. 39: ‘For in sapphires the 8 Bluish-green, Epiphan. in Wetst. 
gold shines with azure points. Of sapphires, 9 διαφανὴς, χρυσοειδὲὲ ἀπολάμπων φέγγος 
white with purple, yet among the Medes the __ [‘‘diaphanous, emitting a radiance like gold ’’]. 
best are nowhere transparent.” 10 Exod. xxviii. 19; Ezek. xxviii. 13. 

4 Cf., in general, Winer, Rwb., ii. 350 sqq. 11 «¢ A violet color shines through all.” 

5 Exod. xxviii. 17; Ezek. xxviii. 13. 12 Cf. Winer, p. 234. 


4 


CHAP. XXI. 24-27. 483 


pearl. Cf. Bava Bathra, p. 75,1: “God will. give gems and pearls thirty 
cubits long and just as broad, and will hollow them to the depth of twenty 
cubits and the breadth of ten, and place them in the gates of Jerusalem,” etc. 
— The streets of the city —7 πλατεῖα τ. πόλ. designates in general all the streets 
of the city,? not the market-place,’ also not the chief street leading into the 
city,* because, in the entire description of the city, nothing is said of what 
lies outside the walls — consist, like the houses which rise from the streets 
(ver. 18), of pure gold, which is as transparent “as transparent glass.” 

Ver. 22 sq. The proper glory of the city is further described. It has no 
temple, because there is no need of one; for its temple is God himself and 
the Lamb. Nor does God, together with the Lamb, have a special dwelling- 
place in the city, but it is filled with the δόξα of God, everywhere present in 
10,5 and the city itself is indeed the bride of the Lamb ® who is immediately 
present to all the inhabitants of the city.7— They, therefore, need not the 
light of sun and moon; for 8 the δόξα of God and the Lamb itself fill them 
with light. Here where, indeed, the description implies that the δόξα τοῦ 
θεοῦ corresponds to the sun, and that of the Lamb to the moon,?° it does not 
follow that the same distinction is made also in ver. 11,1} because there it is 
only a φωστῆήρ that is mentioned, viz., the δόξα τ. 6. appears as φωστήρ, because 
it φωτίζει (ver. 23). 

Vv. 24-27. The men who enter into the city. —The description is based 
throughout upon O. T. prophecies,!* so that it definitely marks how the 
mystery of God, which He had long since promised through the prophets, 
finds then its fulfilment.18 Hereby the future expression, now employed by 
John, is explained, while the aor., written besides in ver. 23), reports what 
has been beheld.!# In the tone and language of the ancient prophets, John 
describes the people who are to find entrance into the future city. In 
general, as has been said, ver. 27, in a decisive way, they are only such as 
are written in the book of life; 15 but in vv. 24-26, the Gentiles are expressly 
designated as those who, according to the ancient prophecies, are to find 
admission into the city. Thus by this statement, derived from the ancient 
prophetical declarations, the ideas of those expositors are not justified who 
conceive of the “ heathen” and “kings,” as dwelling outside of the city,!® or 
who even attempt to determine what had been the moral condition, during 
their earthly life, of the heathen admitted now into the new Jerusalem.!* 
The essentially parallel description, vii. 9 sqq., leads to the fact that 
believers from the heathen are to be regarded as entitled to an abode in 


1 See Wetst. EK Oy ΧΟ: 

3 De Wette, Hengstenb., Ebrard. 14 Cf, xxii. 3 sqq. with ver. 1 8q.; also xviii. 
3 Beng. 4 Ziill. 9, 15, with xviii. 17. 

5 Cf. vv. 3, 11. 16 Of. xx. 15. 

6 Ver.9. Cf. xix. 9. 16 Ewald, De Wette, Bleek, etc. 

7 Cf. xxii. 3 sq., iii. 20. 17 Storr., Diss. 11. ἴῃ Apoc. quaedam loca, 
8 Cf. ver. 11. p. 355: ‘* Provided, according to the measure 
® Cf. Isa. lx. 19 aq. of their ability and knowledge, they were de- 
10 Grot., Ewald, De Wette. voted to godliness, truth, and right.’ See 
11 Ziill. Comment. theolog. edit. a Velthus., Kuin. et 


12 188. Ix. 3, 11; Ps. Ixxii. 10. Rup., vol. vy. Likewise Ebrard. 


484 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


the new Jerusalem; but the peculiar character of the description is con- 
ditioned by the O. T. prototypes, upon which John depends, although. 
in its perspective, that which occurs in the earthly period of the Messianic 
time —as the conversion of the heathen, which is represented by the 
heathen coming to the earthly Jerusalem, and bringing presents — does not 
appear definitely separated from that which, to N. T. prophecy, having 
the first appearance of the Lord back of it, lies only on the other side of the 
second coming of the Lord. Altogether inapplicable is the remark made 
in critical interests,! that the writer of the Apocalypse announces his anti- 
Pauline-Judaizing view, by making the distinction between heathen and 
Jews continue, even at the completion of the kingdom of God, in oppo- 
sition to Gal. iii. 28, 1 Cor. xv. 28. It is, indeed, directly stated how the 
natural distinction is no longer applicable, since the heathen, just as the 
Jews, receive full citizenship in the new Jerusalem, and, in like manner, 
participate in the blessed glory of the holy city. Cf. xxii. 2. Emphasis on 
works also in the Apoc.? is not intensified to a bold opposition to Paul.? 
Cf. Rom. ii. 9 sqq.; 2 Cor. v. 10. — διὰ τοῦ φωτὸς αὑτῆς. With correct mean- 
ing, Andr. explains ἐν τῷ gwri; but the expression gives rather the pictorial 
_ view as to how the heathen pursue their way through the light that radiates 
from the city shining in the δόξα of God (cf. ver. 23).4— τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν, Viz., 
τῶν βασιλεών.δ Not until ver. 26 is any thing said of the δόξα κ. τιμ. τῶν ἐθνων.ὃ 
— καὶ of πυλῶνες, x.7.A. The constant standing-open of the gates is admissible, 
for the reason that there is no night, and therefore the bringing-in of glori- 
ous gifts (ver. 26) need not be interrupted.? To oicove,8 an impersonal sub- 
ject is to be supplied,® and not οἱ BaovAeic.1° — πᾶν κοινὸν. Cf. Acts x. 14. — 
ποιοῦν βδέλυγμα καὶ ψεῦδος. Cf. xvii. 4 sq., xxi. 8, xxii. 15. The more defi- 
nitely the sins of the heathen are mentioned as the reason for their exclusion 
from the holy city, the more significant it is to reckon the heathen nations 
and kings of the earth designated, ver. 24 sqq., among those who are written 
in the book of life. For they also enter into the city, bringing gifts, and 
that, too, as citizens who are to remain therein. Thus the innate universal- 
ism of the genuine ancient-prophetic Apocalyptics which lies at the founda- 
tion also of passages like v. 9, vii. 9, is expressed the more pregnantly, 
because the heathen, received into the new Jerusalem, are designated in the 
same words (τὰ ἔθνη, of βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς) as were employed by ch. xiii. in 
the expression standing for the heathen world worshipping the beast. 


1 Hilgenfeld, Introduction, p. 449. δ Cf. Isa. Ixvi. 12. 

2 xx. 12, etc. ΤΟΥ, isa. xs il; 

3 Hilgenfeld wt supra. 8 Cf. xii. ὁ, x. 11. 

4 Hengstenb. Cf., on the other hand, De 9 Luther, Bengel, De Wette, Hengstenb., 
Wette: “ΒΥ means of its light.” Ew. ii., ete. 


5 De Wette, Bleek. 10 Ew. i., Ziill. 


NOTES, 485 


Notes BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XCIV. Ver. 1. ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι, 


7 

Carpenter: ‘‘ The sea has played an important part in the symbolism of the 
book. Out of the sea, rose the wild beast (xiii. 1); the purple-clad Babylon sat 
enthroned upon many waters (xvii. 1); the restless, tumultuous ocean, now dis- 
cordant with its clamorous waves, now flooding the earth in confederate force, 
—the troubled sea of evil, which cannot rest, and which casts up but mire and 
dirt (Isa. lvii. 21), is nevermore to be found on the face of that earth, or near 
that city, whose peace is as a river, and whose righteousness as the waves of the 
sea (Isa. xlviii. 18), and whose inhabitants are delivered from ‘the waves of this 
troublesome world.’’’ Gebhardt: ‘‘ Most probably, by leaving out the sea, he 
simply wishes to express the new in the fuller sense of the word, the ideal or 
the perfection of the new world; inasmuch as, on account of its dangers, and 
the many deaths in it (cf. xx. 13), but chiefly because of its being repugnant to 
all the ancients, he regarded the sea an unpleasant feature, and a prominent 
imperfection of the present state.’’ Diisterdieck’s idea of a new sea with the 
new earth has been poetically expressed by Bonar: — 


** Only all of gloom and horror, 

Idle wastes of endless brine, 

Haunts of darkness, storm, and danger, — 
These shall be no longer thine. 

Backward ebbing, wave and ripple, 
Wondrous scenes shall then disclose; 

And, like earth’s, the wastes of ocean 
Then shall blossom as the rose.”’ 


XCV. Ver. 14. ὀνόματα τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων. 


Calov.: ‘‘The apostles, who, by their living voice and literary records, 
founded the Church, and upon whose doctrine and writings it rests as on an 
immovable foundation.’’ Hengstenberg: ‘‘ The twelve apostles are the most 
noble bulwark of the Church, the chief channel through which the preserving 
grace of God flows forth to it. If, even in the new Jerusalem, they are the 
foundation on which the security of the Church against all conceivable dangers 
depends, they must also be the bulwark through all periods of the Church 
militant. But this passage, and that of Matt. xix. 28, where the twelve apostles 
appear in the ‘ regeneration,’ —the new Jerusalem, —as the heads of the Church, 
are a sufficient answer to those who maintain that the apostolate is a continuous 
institution, and expect salvation for the Church by subjection to pretended new 
apostles. The Lord himself, and the disciple whom he loved, knew only of 
twelve apostles. The twelve apostles are forever. That in the corner-stone, 
besides the apostles, there are also prophets, is only a seeming variation. For 
that the prophets are not those of the O. T., but of the N. T., and personally 
identical with the apostles, is clear from the parallel passages iii. 5, iv. 11.” 


XCVI. Ver. 16. toa ἐστίν. 


Alford: ‘‘ Diisterdieck’s idea that the houses were three thousand stadii in 
height, while the wall was only one hundred and forty-four cubits, is too absurd 


486 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


to come at all into question. The words are open, this last consideration being 
taken into account, to two interpretations: (1), That the city, including the hill 
or rock on which it was placed, and which may be imagined as descending with 
it, formed such a cube as seems here described; or (2), That there is some loose- 
ness of use in the word ‘oa, and that we must understand that the length and 
breadth were equal to each other, and the height equal all round. Of these 
two, I prefer the former, as doing no violence to the words, and, at the same 
time, recalling somewhat the form of the earthly Jerusalem on its escarpment 
above the valley of the Kedron.’? On the other hand, Gebhardt: ‘‘ According 
to Diisterdieck, the relative lowness of the wall is. indicative of the security 
of the city (comp. Isa. liv. 74); and very justly do we see in the size of the 
city, and the height of the walls, so prominently expressed, a symbol of its 
safety from every danger.’’ Hengstenberg: ‘‘ Manifestly the height, and the 
length, and the breadth are equal; and nothing is said concerning the relation 
of the houses to one another. For, according to this conception, the height of 
the city would be altogether undetermined.” 


CHAP. XXII. 487 


CHAPTER XXII. 


Ver. 1. ποταμὸν id. ζ, λαμπρὸν ὡς xp. So A, B, 8, al., Verss., Beng., Griesb., 
Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. The καθαρόν, which the Rec. has before ποταμ., is 
without attestation. — Ver. 2. Instead of ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν (Elz., Beng.; cf. 
John xix. 18), read ἐντ, x, ἐκεῖθεν (A, B, al., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]). The 
ἕνα before ἕκαστον (Elz., Beng.) is rightly deleted by Griesb. — Ver. 3. κατάθεμα, 
So A, B, 8, al., Beng., Griesb., the moderns. Incorrectly, Elz.: xaravadeua; 
ef. Matt. xxvi. 74. — Ver. 5. The ἐκεῖ after ἔσται (Elz., Beng.) is without attesta- 
tion. According to A, δὲ, al., Griesb., Lach., Tisch. LX. [W. and H.] have 
written ἔτι; Tisch. has written this also after B. καὶ ov χρεία λύχνου καὶ φωτός. 
So Tisch., according to B. ‘This appears to be the mater lectionis ; yet Lach., 
who writes καὶ οὐχ ἕξουσιν (18: οὐκ ἔχουσιν) χρείαν φωτὸς λύχνου Kai φωτὸς ἡλίου, has 
in his favor the testimony of A and δὲ: while the rec. «. χρείαν οὐκ ἔχουσι λύχνου 
καὶ φωτὸς ἡλίου is unattested. Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]: κ. οὐκ ἔχ. χρείαν φωτὸς 
λύχν. κι, --- φωτίσει, The fut. is certain, although the discrimination as to the 
form φωτίσει (A, al., Beng., Lach.), or φωτιεὶ, is difficult. The pres. (Elz.) has 
only unimportant witnesses. ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς. So A, 8, Beng., Griesb., the moderns, 
The é7? is lacking in B, Elz. — Ver. 6. τῶν πνευμάτων τῶν προφητῶν. So, correctly 
(A, B, &, al.) already, Beng., Griesb. The modification τ. ἁγίων προφ. (Elz.) is 
without critical value. — Ver. 8. After «. ὅτε ἤκουσα, Tisch. has καὶ dre ἴδον (B, 
al.). This is, at all events, more correct than the Rec. καὶ ἔβλεψα (so δὰ), which 
Lach., Tisch. IX., have indorsed, although A has κ. ἔβλεπον. But even this form 
is liable to suspicion because of its correspondence with the preceding βλέπων, 
— Ver. 10. The ὅτε before ὁ καιρὸς (Rec., Beng.) is certainly a proposed interpre- 
tation; as such, the γὰρ also, after ὁ xaip., appears suspicious, although its 
omission (Griesb., Tisch.) is forbidden by A, B, &, al., Verss. (Lach., Tisch. 
IX,).— Ver. 11. 6 ῥυπαρὸς ῥυπαρευθήτω. So A, al., Beng., Griesb., Tisch. The 
form, supported by Orig. and x, ῥυπανθήτω (Lach., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]}) is 
the more usual, and may accordingly indeed have the force of an explanation. 
The Rec. ὁ ῥυπὼν ῥυπωσάτω is feebly attested. Instead of δικαιωθήτω (Elz.), Beng. 
already wrote δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω (A, B, &, al.). — Ver. 12. ἐστὶν αὑτοῦ. So A, 
δὲ, 21, Syr., Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]. Whether B thus read, or have αὐτοῦ 
ἔσται (Elz., Beng.), is not established; cf. Tisch. — Ver. 14. The Rec. ποιοῦντες 
τὰς ἐντολὰς αὑτοῦ is therefore to be preferred (cf. De Wette) because the reading 
πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν (Lach., Tisch. [W. and H.]), advocated by A, &, 7, 38, 
Verss., appears to have the purpose which is clearly expressed in the text of 
Andr, (τ. évt, ἐμοῦ); viz., not to allow the speech of Christ (vv. 13, 16) to be 
interrupted by an intervening speech of John. — Ver. 16. ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, It is 
certain that this reading, supported by Beng., Tisch. (cf. also De Wette, etc.), 
depends only upon the witnesses 4, 11, 12, 47, 48, Arm., al.; while the ἐν (A, al., 
Verss., Lach.), as well as the ἐπὶ (B, δὲ, al., Syr., Elz., Tisch. IX. [W. and H.]), 
was apparently interpolated because the address of Christ to the churches was 
not understood. So the exposition. — Ver. 21. The additions ὑμῶν and τῶν ἁγίων 


488 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


(B, al.) to πάντων, and the ᾿Αμῆν at the close (Elz.), were properly rejected already 
by Beng. The subscription, which in A runs ἀποκάλυψις ᾿Ιωάννου, is entirely 
lacking in B, al. 


Vv. 1-5. The continuation (καὶ ἔδειξέν μοι, cf. xxi. 9 sq.) and completion 
of the description of the glory prepared for believers in the new Jerusalem. 
Here, also,! in connection with the statement of what John beheld, the express 
admonition occurs corresponding to the paracletic purpose of the entire reve- 
lation (cf. ver. 12 sqq.), that only the servants of God, the victors (chs. ii., iii.), 
can attain that blessedness. 

πόταμον ὕδατος ζωῆς, κιτιλ. In this paradise of God,? there is a stream? 
whose water is “ water of life,” so that they who drink thereof* receive life 
through this water. The description depends, as already Ezek. xlvii. 1 sqq., 
Zech. xiv. 8, upon the prototype, Gen. 11. 10. — ἐκπορευόμενον, x.7.A, Cf. iv. 6. 
The throne which belongs to God and the Lamb ὅ is the source of this stream, 
for only through the mediation of Christ as the Lamb, is the participation 
of believers in the eternal life of God inferred. [See Note XCVII., p. 494.] 
— ἐν μέσῳ τῆς πλατείας, x.7.A. It is, in a formal respect, very harsh if the ἐν μέσῳ 
be referred only to τ. πλατ. avr.,® while the «. τ. ποτ. depends upon the succeed- 
ing ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ; it is more natural’ to refer the ἐν μέσῳ to both τ. rar. 
avr. and x. τ. ποτ., So that the additional designation ἐντ. x. ἐκεῖθ. more accu- 
rately declares that the trees, on both sides of the river, stand on the 
space lying between the street and the river, i.e., on the right and the left 
banks.’ — τῆς πλατείας. John has in view a particular street, the main 
street through which flows the one particular river. — ξύλον ζωῆς. Cf. i1. 7. 
The expression designates the entire mass of trees in general.? — ποιοῦν 
καρποὺς δώδεκα, x.7.A. Cf. Ezek. xlviil. 12. The meaning is correctly de- 
scribed already by Andr.: ἀδιάλειπτον τὴν τῶν Kaptav—éxgvow.!? In eternity, 
the continually growing fruits of the tree of life serve the blessed for 
food. See similar descriptions of the rabbins in Wetst.—x«ai τὰ φύλλα, 
«.7.A. This is to be referred to the heathen dwelling outside of the city, 
as little as xxi. 23 sqq. But against the context also is the explanation 
of Hengstenb., that, in the present period, the life-forces arising from 
the Jerusalem, even now in heaven, are to heal the sickness of the heathen, 
i.e., to effect their conversion ; for what is expressed concerning the leaves 
of the tree of life refers to the same time as that which is said of the 
fruits. This has been correctly acknowledged by those who have thought 
of the conversion, in the future world, of heathen to whom in this life the 
gospel has not been preached,!? or of the full development of the weak faith 
of the heathen.18 But both are contrary to the purpose of the context, which, 
just because of their faith, makes the heathen 14 share in the glory of the city. 


WCE. xxi 27. 7 Cf. v.6. Ewald. 

2), Of; Ne Te 8 Of. Ezek. xlvii. 7, 12. 

3 Cf. iv. 6, vii. 17. 9 Beng., De Wette, Ew., etc. 

4 Cf. ver. 17. 10 [** The perpetual growth of fruits.’’] 
5 Of. vii. 17, v. 13. : 11 Ewald, Ziill.; ef. also De Wette. 

6 Andr., Vitr., Beng., Ziill., De Wette, 12 Beng. 


Hengstenb., Ebrard, Bleek. 13 Ebrard, 14 xxi. 23 sqq. 


CHAP. XXII. 6-21. 489 


By the words xa? τὰ φύλλα, x.7.2., in an entirely similar way the eternal refresh- 
ment and glorification of believing heathen are especially emphasized, as the 
preceding words ξύλον ζωῆς --- τ. καρπὸν aiz, indicate in general the blessed 
satiety of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem, of whom no special class 
whatever is mentioned. In connection with this, the expression εἰς θεραπείαν 
τ. ἐθν. is as little to be pressed,.in the sense that a still present sickness of 
the heathen were presupposed, since it might possibly be inferred from 
xxi. 4, that the tears which God will wipe away from the blessed are the 
sign of pains still endured; but as the tears which are wept because of 
earthly sorrow are wiped away in eternal life, so the healing leaves of the 
tree of life serve for the healing of the sickness from which the heathen 
have suffered in their earthly life, but shall suffer no longer in the new 
Jerusalem. If they were previously hungry and thirsty, now they are also 
to be satisfied;1 if they were previously blind, miserable, and without the 
power of life,? now they are to share in the enjoyment of all glory, holiness, 
and blessedness. —xal πᾶν κατάθεμα οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι. Cf, Zech. xiv. 11. After all 
upon which God’s curse rests has reached its own place, and been eternally 
separated from the blessed communion of saints,? nothing of the kind can 
any longer be found in the city, wherein, now, also,* are the throne of God 
and of the Lamb, and that, too, immediately near, so that all servants of 
God, all inhabitants of the city, who, as belonging to God, bear his name 
upon their foreheads,® see his face. — αὐτοῦ belongs to the chief subject ὁ θέος 
- καὶ νύξ, κιτλ, Only by an artificial expedient does Ziill. find here “some- 
thing entirely new,” in comparison with what is said at xxi. 23, 25. -- καὶ 
βασιλεύσουσιν, x.t.2. With the richest and, at least, a figurative expression, 
John concludes his announcement of the future glory of believers, by at the 
same time emphasizing the eternal duration of that happy state as explicitly 
as in the description of the judgment upon enemies.? 

Vv. 6-21. The Epilogue, which naturally contains two parts, since it 
first (vv. 6-17) comprises the revelations which John had received, and then 
also (vv. 18-21) the prophetical book in which John had written the reve- 
lations received for the service of the churches, comes to a close. In both 
respects this conclusion corresponds to the introduction of the whole (chs. 
i.-ili.), in which likewise the double purpose enters, viz., that of communi- 
cating the prophetical scriptures to the churches, and that of designating 
the contents of revelation as such from the very beginning. 

καὶ einév uot, Viz., the angel, who spoke at xxi. 9.8 This is acknowledged 
also by Ebrard, who, however, finds here not an angelic declaration inter- 
posed anew, but a repetition of the account of John, who now once more 
recalls the angelic declaration previously received. Ebrard decides, logic- 
ally, that in ver. 8 sqq. there is presented not a repetition of the event 
actually occurring, xix. 10, but only a repetition of the account of the same. 


1 Cf. ver. 17, vii. 16. 2 Cf. iii. 17. So sig. 1..18.15. 

Me Pa UG 15. χεῖ. 57. « 6 Cf. xxi. 3, vii. 15. 

4 This is (cf. Jos. vii. 12; Beng.) the inner 7 x. 10; cf. xx. 14 θα. 
connection with what follows, which, however, 8 De Wette, Bleek, Volkm. 


appears to be formally annexed by the καὶ. 


490 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


This conception, however, is not only in conflict with the mode of statement 
in the text, but is also improper for the reason that thereby the return, indis- 
pensable to the harmony of the entire Apoc., from the series of visions, 
iv. 1-xxii. 5, revealing the future! to the standpoint of the introductory 
vision,? is cut off. Cf. also ver. 16. — οὗτοι of λόγοι, x.7.A. Cf. xxi. 5. The 
angel looks back to the entire revelation communicated to John. Cf. vv. 7, 
18 (τ. Ady. τ. mp. τ. βιβλ. τούτ.). So also Klief. — τῶν πνευμάτων τῶν προφητῶν. “The 
spirits” of the prophets are here no more than in 1 Cor. xiv. 32, the effects” 
of the Spirit present in the prophets, but are the spirits belonging to the 
different prophets, which God subjects to himself, and inspires and instructs 
by his own Spirit. Thus the Lord, who is the God of the spirits of all the 
prophets, has especially manifested himself now in the spirit of John; this 
God has communicated to John‘ his true words of revelation by signifying 
to him, through the ministry of the angel, the things which are to come, in 
order that he may proclaim them to his servants.— roi¢ δούλοις αὐτοῦ, i.e., 
believers in general, ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ver. 16.5— καὶ ἰδοὺ, ἔρχομαι rays. As the 
Divine authority, so also especially the chief contents of the now completed 
revelation are again made prominent,—this occurs by the angel speaking 
directly in the name of the coming Lord himself,® — and then the parenetic 
inference which this affords (μακάριος, x.7.4.)7 is added by the angel. —On 
ver. 8 sqq., cf. xix. 10. — ὁ ἀκούων καὶ βλέπων ταῦται The part. pres.’ marks, 
without regard to time, the idea of (ecstatic) hearing and seeing of these 
things, and accordingly the prophetic dignity of John, who just by hearing 
and seeing all that has been “shown” him for eye and ear, has become the 
Divinely-appointed interpreter of the Divine mysteries. Thus the pres. 
particularly shows that the ravra ® refers not only to what has been reported, 
ver. 6 sq., but also to the entire revelation of God. On the other hand, the 
aor. occurs (x. ὅτε ἤκουσα) Where that which is special, ver. 6 sq., is treated. 
The variations, consequently, which by additions to the mere ἤκουσα recur to 
the first clause of ver. 8,19 yield an absolutely false interpretation ; for John 
falls down before the angel, because he thinks that in the speech heard 
(ὅτε ἤκουσα), vv. 6, 7 (consider especially ver. 7), he recognizes the Lord him- 
self. — καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν cov τῶν προφητῶν. That the prophets are here especially 
emphasized as the brethren of John, distinguished from the rest of believers," 
is natural, because it is now the intention to assert the prophetical authority 
of John and his book, which the rest of believers are to receive and keep as 
a testimony of the Lord. Corresponding also with this, is the fact that the 
angel immediately imparts the command 12 not to seal}? the revelations 
written in this book, but to communicate them to believers. —é καιρὸς γὰρ 
ἐγγύς ἐστιν. Cf. i. 3. The nearer the time is, the more the churches need 
warning and consolation with respect to what is contained in this revelation. 


1 ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχ.» ver. 6. Cf. iv. 1. 8 Cf. xx. 10. 

2 i. 9-iii. 22. 9 Notice the plural, which recurs also in the 
3 De Wette. correl., τ. δεικν. μοι ταῦτα, ver. 8. 

4 Cf. i. 1 sqq. 10 See Critical Notes. 

"ΟΕ dank. 11 Cf., on the other hand, xix. 10. 

6 Cf. ver. 12; xi. 3. 12 Cf. i. 11, 19. 


7 Of. xiv. 13, xix. 9. 18 Cf. x. 4; Dan. viii. 26, xii. 4, 9. 


CHAP. XXII. 6-21. 491 


—6 αδικῶν, x.7.A. The practical result afforded by this revelation is expressed, 
ver. 11, by the angel himself in a parenetic address} which, recurring to what 
the former visions proclaimed, as well concerning the eternal ruin of the 
godless as also the eternal glory of the righteous, applies it to both classes 
of men. In connection with this, the summons to those doing wrong, and 
the filthy (ὁ ῥυπαρός) 2 to continue in their godless course, and thus to hasten 
to sure ruin, is not without a certain irony. [See Note XCVIII., p. 494.] 
The purpose of ver. 11 is the less to be mistaken, as the allusion to the re- 
tributive advent of the Lord not only immediately precedes (ὁ καιρ. y. ἐγγύς ἐστιν, 
ver. 10), but also is added directly afterwards (ver. 12 sq.), and here the 
impending righteous retribution is expressly emphasized: ὁ μισθός μου, k.7.A. 
Cf. xi. 18; Isa. xl. 10, Ixii. 11. — ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ. Cf. xx. 12.— The 
words, ver. 12, read like a speech out of Christ’s own mouth, those of ver. 
134 like one of God himself; but, just because of this alternation, it is 
unnatural to ascribe both declarations to the angel, speaking in the name of 
Christ and God. On the other hand, the alternation of speakers appears 
too confused, if Christ himself and God be regarded as actually speaking, 
particularly since ver. 14 sq. (τ. évr. αὐτοῦ) is most easily regarded a parenetic 
digression of John. Hence the speeches of vv. 12 and 13, at the close of 
the book, must be conceived of here in the same way as the keynote of the 
entire speech of God given from the very beginning in the introduction, 
i. 8. In the ancient prophetic way, John, who shows himself to be a true 
interpreter of Divine revelation, in two compendious Divine declarations, 
fixes the fundamental thoughts of this entire prophecy (cf. ver. 20); the 
very abruptness of these expressions is an indication that Christ and God 
do not actually enter into the scene as themselves speaking. The speech, 
ver. 12 sq., thus understood, forms then the transition from the speech of 
the angel actually present to the parenetic words of John, ver. 14 sq. — 
τ. ἐντολ. αὐτοῦ. Of God,® not of Christ.* On the reading advocated by Ew. 11., 
πλύνοντες, «.7.A., see Critical Notes. This reading is deprived of its plausi- 
bility by the correct estimate of vv. 12, 18.— iva ἔσται. Cf. Winer, p. 271. 
- ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ἐύλον r.¢. The purpose of the godly who endeavor, 
according to the promised reward, to eat of the fruits of the tree of life,’ 
shall certainly be attained ; hence the beatitude. — καὶ τοῖς πυλῶσιν, κιτιλΔ. Cf. 
xxi. 27. — ἔξω οἱ κύνες, x.7.4. The ordinary idea in the declarative sense, ex- 
pressed by the annexed δὲ, appears too feeble; the inner opposition to the 
beatitude, ver. 14, more readily suggests the conceiving of the words, ver. 15, 
as a command, so that ἔξω, etc., does not mean “foris sc. sunt” [“ without 
are dogs” ], but “foras sc. sunto” [“let dogs be without” ], etc.* — οἱ κύνες. 
General designation of moral impurity; cf. ῥυπαρός, ver. 11. A special refer- 
ence to Sodomites 19 does not lie in the context. —x. of φαρμακοὶ, «.7.A, Cf. 


1 According to Klief., an exhortation, added 5 Cf. xii. 17, xiv. 12. Ziillig, De Wette, 
by John, is contained in vv. 11-15. Hengstenb. 

2 Cf, xxi. 27: βδέλυγμα; Jas.i. 21: ῥυπαρία. 6 Grot., Beng., etc. 7 Ver. 2, ii. 7. 

8 Cf. Ezek. iii. 27. Andr., De Wette, 8 Cf. Matt. v. 13, xiii. 48. 
Ebrard, Kienlen. ® Phil. iii. 2; Matt. vii. 6. 


4 Cf. xxi. 5, 6, i. 8. 10 Kichh., who compares Deut. xxiii. 18. 


492 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


xxi. 8. — Still once more there follows, ver. 18, a concluding certification of 
the prophet, which in a double respect comprehends the introduction of the 
whole, since Christ, as the One revealing his own coming, not only maintains 
that he himself has given this revelation through the angel sent by him,! 
but also expressly emphasizes the determination of the same for the 
churches.?. The latter occurs in an address to the churches themselves, ὑμῖν 
- ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, Which is then the more applicable if the words, ver. 16, be 
regarded not as an actual speech coming from the Lord’s mouth, but? as 
spoken in the name of Christ. The reading éni τ. éxxA.,—i.e., “over,” in 
reference to the churches,‘ not “to” the churches, nor “in ® the churches,” 
nor with the gen., as Beng. explains,’ since he refers the ὑμῖν as dative to 
the angels of the churches, but regards the ἐκκλησίαις, which he also reads 
without a preposition, as an ablative — avoids indeed the seeming difficulty 
that the speech of the Lord is directly applied to the churches, but creates a 
far greater difficulty with respect to the relation of the ὑμῖν, which then can 
refer only to the prophets in general.§ But the idea that the Lord had the 
mystery of his advent proclaimed by all the Christian prophets is here not 
only impertinent, but is expressly rejected by the words ἔπεμψα τ. ἄγγελόν μου, 
which definitely marks the present revelation to the prophet John; but the 
application of this to the churches is throughout appropriate. Cf. also 
the answer of the churches, ver. 17. [See Note XCIX., p. 494.] ἡ ρίζα 
καὶ τὸ γένος Aavid. What the first expression means figuratively, and accord- 
ing to the O. T. prototype,® the second says more properly: the Son.!© In 
this passage the interpretation is also to be rejected, according to which the 
sense is that “in Christ alone the family of David stands and is preserved.” 11 
[See Note XLV., p. 216.] ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς ὁ πρωϊνός. Here Christ himself 
is called the bright morning-star ; 12. for from him issues the light of eternal 
day.18 | 

To the message announced several times from ver. 6, as from the Lord’s 
own mouth, about which the entire revelation revolves, there now follows 
the answer: Ἔρχου. Thus speak “the Spirit,” who, on the one hand, qualifies 
the prophets for announcing the future to the churches, and, on the other 
hand, also works faith in the churches, and thus inspires them also with 
hopeful longing for the coming of the Lord, “and the Bride,” i.e., the assem- 
bly of believers who are moved by the Spirit 15 [see Note C., p. 494]; and thus 
also every individual is to speak who hears the joyful promise of the coming 
of the Lord (καὶ ὁ ἀκ., «.7.4. In connection with the latter summons, John 
expressly adds (καὶ ὁ διψῶν) 16 that the eternal blessings of life, which the 
coming Lord will distribute, are to be had gratuitously by every one who 


1 ΟῚ: 10 Andr., Ewald, etc. Cf. Virg., Aen., IV. 
2 Cf. i. 3 sqq. 12: Credo equidem — genus esse deorum. 

3 Cf. ver. 12 sq. 11 Vitr., ete. 

4 Ziill., Hengstenb. Cf. x. 11. 12 Of., on the other hand, ii. 28. 

5 Luth. 13 Cf. xxi. 23. 

6 Vulg. ZEST 1 top -4 bpd MU bys b War fous bt 

7 Cf. also Wolf. 15 Cf. xxi. 9. 

8 Cf. ver. 9. Heugstenb. 16 Cf. xxi. 6; Isa. lv. 1. 


9 Of. v. ὃ. 


CHAP. XXII. 18-21. 493 


desires to receive them.! This pertains only to the desire that is authenti- 
cated by the fidelity of obedience. The dwpedv placed with great emphasis 
at the close, is truly of an evangelical character, and energetically defends 
the book against the charge of anti-Pauline Judaism.? 

Vv. 18-21. The close of the book in which the prophet has communi- 
cated to the churches the revelation given to him. Instead of the commen- 
dation, accompanied by rich promises, of the prophetical book, which stood 
in the beginning,® there appears here likewise a threatening corresponding 
to its Divine authority against all who corrupt it (ver. 18 sq.). The prophet 
then once more declares, as a word of the Lord himself, the chief sum of 
the entire revelation, by, on his part, meeting this promise of the Lord with 
the believing prayer for its fulfilment (ver. 20), and then concludes with the 
Christian farewell greeting, corresponding to the address to the churches 
(i. 4). —The threatening (ver. 18 sq.) has developed from the allusion in 
Deut. iv. 2,4 but has been shaped (ἐπιθῆσει ὁ 0. ἐπ᾽ abt. τὰς πληγὰς, K.7.A., Ver. 18; 
ἀφελεῖ ὁ θ. Td μέρος αὐτ. ἀπὸ τ. ξύλου, x.7.4., Ver. 19), according to the standard 
of the preceding descriptions, —the threatened “plagues” being not only 
those described in ch. xvi., which indeed in xv. 1, 8, are co-ordinated as the 
last described in the former visions,5— and is marked in its righteousness 
by the paronomastic mode of expression (ἐάν τὶς ἐπιθῇ —émiOjoe ὁ θεός ἀφέλῃ ---- 
ἀφελεῖ). The threatening is presented in the most formal way, παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι 
τοὺς λόγους, «.7.2., 1.e., to every one who, through the reading in the church, 
hears the prophetic discourses written in the present book.?. From this per- 
sonal designation it results, at all events, that the threatening with the curse 
is not directed against inconsiderate transcribers;® but on the other hand, 
Ew. i. and De Wette improperly press the expression τ, ἀκούοντι, when they 
refer the threat to the danger that what is received only with the ear in oral 
communication is easily falsified, and thus a distraction of Christian hope 
could be produced. Then the threatening must by its injustice create 
offence.? But the ἀκούοντες come into consideration, not as mediators of the 
literary tradition, but as those who are to appropriate “the contents” of 
the prophetical book, revealed to them by God, —notice that ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ 
αὐτά, is first said, —for their own warning and encouragement, and are to 
maintain it in its purity, and to act accordingly. These fall under the curse 
when they arbitrarily falsify the revelation of God that has been given, 
because they will not approve the righteous ways of God, which are here 
described,!° and consequently call down upon themselves the wrathful judg- 
ments of God, which impend over unbelievers. —6é μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Christ. 
Cf. i. 2, xix. 10. With a word of the coming Lord himself, which contains 
the very marrow of the entire revealed testimony given to the prophet," he 


1 Cf. i. 3. 2 Cf. Rom. iii. 24. 3 i. 3. 9 De Wette. Cf. also Luther, Introduction 

4 LXX.: οὗ προσθήσετε ---καὶ οὐκ ἀφελεῖτε, of 1522: ‘* Besides, I think that it is entirely 
K.T.A, too much that he severely commends and 

5 On τ. μέρος αὐτ., «.7.A., cf. xxi. 8. Ewald: threatens with respect to such a book of his 
‘Shall withdraw fellowship.” own, more than other holy books, as though it 

6 Cf. xi. 18. were of much more importance.” 

7 Cf.i.3. Ew., De Wette. 10 Cf. xv. 3 aq., xi. 17 sqq. 


5» Vitr., Ziill., Bleek, ete. 11 Cf. Introduction, p. 28. 


494 THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. 


concludes his book, not, however, without sealing with his ᾿Αμήν his believ- 
ing acceptance of the Lord’s promise,! and expressing his own longing for 
the Lord’s coming, in the sense of ver. 17. 

The epistolary closing wish (ver. 21) corresponds to the dedication 
(i. 4 sqq.) whence also the πάντων obtains its limitation. This is expressed 
incorrectly in the addition τῶν ἁγίων, but correctly in the tyav.2 


ΝΟΤΕΒ BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. 


XCVII. Ver. 1. ποταμὸν ὕδατος ζωῆς. 


This has often been interpreted as referring to the Holy Spirit (Gerhard, 
Lightfoot, Calov., Philippi, etc.). Thus Calov.: ‘‘ By the river of water of life 
ἐκπορευόμενον from the throne of God and of the Lamb, we understand the 
Holy Spirit, whose ‘ personal characteristic,’ as they say, is ἐκπόρευσις (John xv. 
26), from the Son, no less than from the Father, the throne of majesty.”’ 


XCVIII. Ver. 11. ὁ ῥυπαρὸς ῥυπανθήτω, k.7.A. 


Alford finds a parallel in our Lord’s saying, Matt. xxvi. 45: ‘‘ ‘Sleep on now, 
and take your rest;’ also Ezek. xx. 39;’’ and interprets the irony: ‘‘‘ The 
time is so short that there is hardly room for change;’ the lesson conveyed 
in its depth being, ‘ Change while there is time.’ ”’ 


XCIX. Ver. 16. ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. 


Luthardt: ‘‘ A congregational book; not a book merely for a few, and fora 
small circle, is this book of prophecy. And Jesus himself expressly confirms 
the fact that itis from Him. Who will venture to contradict Him ?”’ 


C. Ver. 17. τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη. 


Luthardt: ‘‘ The Spirit, who lives in the Church, and the Bride, the Church, 
that lives in the Spirit, say ‘Come!’ This is all her sighing and longing.” 
Hengstenberg, however, qualifies this: “‘Not the Spirit who dwells-in all 
believers (Rom. viii. 26), but the Spirit of prophecy (xix. 10); the Spirit of the 
prophets (xxii. 6), in which John was on the Lord’s Day (i. 10, iv. 2), who also 
speaks through John in ch. xiv. 13, who proclaims the promises in the seven 
epistles. The Spirit, and John his organ, as the representative of the Bride, 
proclaim ‘Come.’ This ‘Come,’ spoken in her name by the organ of the 
Church, is a fact; they speak, and hence there follows the summons to all the 
individual members of the Church to join in this ‘ Come.’ ”’ 


1 Cf. v. 14, xix. 4. 2 Rec., Luth. 


ULV 


1 1012 


DATE DUE 


at "Δ , f 
Ἢ ἢ 
ΡΥ ΣΝ 
Ata vy 
᾿ ΠΡΊΝ κὰν 


f ἤπ 
‘> 
ἱ ss 4 


Ὁ eye *) 
" τ δ ke, 
Me hy th by 


whe 

0m 

aa Ly 
Ἵ 


